Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Southern Railway Bill.
London and North Eastern Railway (No. 2) Bill.

Bills committed.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, having been complied with, namely:

United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution Bill [Lords].
Portsmouth Corporation Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).

Bills to be read a Second time.

Coventry Corporation Bill (Certified Bill),

Derby Corporation Bill (Certified Bill),

As amended, considered; read the Third time (pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December), and passed.

Glasgow Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 19th March, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RELIGIOUS SITUATION, RUSSIA (INTERCESSORY PRAYERS).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Chaplains' Board was consulted before the order was issued with regard to public intercession on behalf of Christians in Russia on official parades?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Chaplain-General to the Forces was consulted before the Army Council issued instructions against intercessory prayers on church parades on 16th March?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The answer is in the negative.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is it not usual to consult the Chaplains' Board on such occasions?

Mr. SHAW: This was a Government decision of a political, and not a religious, nature.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to my question? Is it not usual to consult the Chaplains' Board on these matters?

Mr. SHAW: This matter has never arisen before, so it cannot be usual.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is not this the first time that any Government has stated that political considerations decide what ought to be a religious matter?

Mr. SHAW: Obviously, it is the first time that it has occurred.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it the position that the Army may watch, but may not pray?

Mr. SHAW: The Army can pray as much as it likes, but these services must not be compulsory services.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Did the Chaplain-General tender his resignation in connection with this matter?

Mr. SHAW: So far as I know, no.

HON. MEMBERS: Accept it if he does!

TERRITORIAL ARMY BANDS (COPYRIGHT MUSIC).

Lieut. - Colonel RUGGLES - BRISE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Performing Right Society claim from the bands of Territorial units an annual fee of £1 1s. per annum for the performance of copyright music and a fee of £3 3s. from the owners of a drill hall on every occasion when a dance or entertainment is organised by a Territorial unit and the services of an outside orchestra are engaged; and, if, in view of the importance of assisting the Territorial Army in its social activities, he will make a compounding arrangement with the Performing Right Society?

Mr. SHAW: I understand that the fees payable to the Performing Right Society have been settled as the result of negotiations between the Council of County Territorial Associations and the Society.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what amount was paid to the Performing Right Society last year for these fees?

Mr. SHAW: Not without notice, and I doubt whether, even with notice, I could get the particulars without an undue expenditure of time and labour.

Lieut. - Colonel RUGGLES - BRISE: Does the right hon. Gentleman confirm the figures in my question?

Mr. SHAW: Yes; I took careful note of the figures.

CANTEENS (HOME AND EMPIRE PRODUCTS).

Major COLVILLE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for War if any steps are taken to encourage the sale of home and Empire products in Army canteens in preference to articles of foreign origin?

Mr. SHAW: Yes, Sir, I understand that the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes take active steps to encourage the sale of home and Empire products. Such products are clearly indicated in the quarterly price list, and special posters and leaflets are issued periodically and special displays are given to draw attention to the advantages of purchasing British Empire goods.

Major COLVILLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that more could be done to encourage the sale of British
goods, in view of the fact that very large quantities of goods of foreign origin are still sold in these canteens?

Mr. TOOLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases privates in the Army do not buy home and Empire products because the prices are too high?

TROOPS, CHINA.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War what British troops are stationed at the present time in China; and how the forces there now compare with those maintained there a year ago?

Mr. SHAW: There are at present in China, five British battalions and one Indian battalion, together with ancillary troops, compared with six British and one Indian at the same date last year.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Are there any proposals to reduce the forces in Shanghai?

Mr. SHAW: At the present moment there is no intention of doing that, but I cannot speak for the future.

ORDNANCE FACTORIES (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. SNELL: 11.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, before deciding to place on short time the men employed at the ordnance factories, he will consider possible alternatives to this course and will receive representations from the local authorities and the men affected?

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided to introduce short time into the ordnance factories; if so, how many men will be adversely affected; and what will be the average reduction of wage as the result?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Shinwell): The work available for the ordnance factories at Woolwich, as at present forecasted in respect of the coming financial year, is not sufficient to employ, under the normal factory conditions, the existing number of employés on full time. It has been accordingly proposed to introduce short time on the basis of a five-day week of eight hours a day. By this means it was hoped to distribute the work to the fullest possible extent among existing staff and
avoid the necessity for discharges. I need hardly say that all the practicable courses were carefully and anxiously considered before this conclusion was reached. I am already in touch with representatives of the men, and I am hoping to discuss the problem with them again on Thursday next. I shall be glad to consider carefully any other solution they may suggest. I shall also be happy to receive representatives of the borough authorities should they desire me to do so. It will be seen from what I have stated that the matter has not yet been finally disposed of, and I am, therefore, unable to give the additional information for which the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) asked.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Do not the Government proposals mean, so far as Woolwich is concerned, a reduction of some 10 to 15 per cent. in the earnings of the men; and is not the number of men affected some 7,000? Is that correct?

Mr. SHINWELL: It depends upon what the right hon. Gentleman means by Government proposals. Certain suggestions have been made, and these are to be discussed with the representatives of the men on Thursday.

Sir K. WOOD: Will it mean the reduction in earnings that I have indicated?

Mr. SHINWELL: That is pure assumption.

Sir K. WOOD: I am asking if it is correct or not.

Mr. SHINWELL: I cannot state whether the assumption is correct.

Sir K. WOOD: Have the Government any other alternative proposal besides this one?

Mr. SHINWELL: When we meet the men and hear what they have to say, possibly alternative proposals may be suggested on either side.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has the hon. Gentleman got all the orders that he can from the Air Ministry and the Admiralty? It may be difficult in the case of the Admiralty, but the Air Ministry is increasing its expenditure, and cannot some of it be placed at Woolwich?

Mr. SHINWELL: We are doing everything that is possible to secure all the orders that we can from the Departments mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In the event of these men being displaced, will any compensation be paid to them?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not the fact that under the Government programme this Arsenal will be gradually discarded and done away with altogether, and will work be found for these men?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Mr. KELLY: 10.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what has been the result of his investigation into the conducting of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Canteen Board, particularly the salaries and wages paid and the conditions of working of those in the service?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am in communication with the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes on the question which my hon. Friend recently put to me, and I will let him know the result in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

BUILDING MATERIALS (SLATES AND DOORS).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the town councils of Scottish cities and, in particular, the Town Council of Glasgow have used exclusively Scottish slates in their housing schemes during the last two years; and, if not, from what country or countries were the slates used derived and in what quantities?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The particulars desired in the latter part are not available for all Scottish cities, but I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement showing, as regards the four principal towns, information that has been obtained in respect of housing contracts entered into during the last 10 years.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that quite recently the
Glasgow Corporation bought 5,000 tons of slates from an Irish quarry; is there any difference in cost between the Scottish and the Irish slates; and are not the Scottish slates the more durable?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Statements have been made to the effect that the Corporation of Glasgow have given an order for some such figure as the hon. and learned Member has mentioned. My information is that Scottish slates are more durable than the Irish slates.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Are not the Cornish ones better still?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the agent of the Irish quarry is a member of the Glasgow Town Council, and that he stated that they were not as good slates?

Following is the tabular statement:


Slates


Town.
Country of Production.
Number.


Glasgow
Welsh
3,797,375



Scottish
3,788,125



English
39,750



Irish
488,500



Norwegian
39,750


Edinburgh
Welsh
1,664,600



Scottish
43,950



English
456,850


Dundee
Welsh
339,000


(Fleming Trust Scheme)
Norwegian
336,000


Aberdeen
Welsh
1,041,300

Mr. HARDIE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether all the councils in Dumbartonshire are specifying British doors for their housing schemes?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am informed that in several housing schemes in Dumbartonshire foreign-made doors were specified, but I have drawn the attention of the local authorities concerned to the circular which my Department issued on 23rd December last regarding the desirability of making use, to the utmost extent practicable, of goods and materials of home production, and I hope that this will lead the local authorities concerned to consider revising their practice.

Mr. HARDIE: Was it the local authorities' specification or that of the contractors sending in estimates?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I understand that in some of the schedules foreign-made doors were actually specified.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: When is the inquiry into various irregularities in Glasgow going to be embarked upon?

Mr. JOHNSTON: This question has nothing to do with that matter.

GLASGOW HOUSING SCHEMES.

Mr. McKINLAY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the respective maintenance costs of the Glasgow Corporation housing schemes at Craigton and Drumoyne?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am informed that for the years 1923 to 1929 inclusive the maintenance costs of the Glasgow Corporation's housing schemes at Craigton and Drumoyne were £8,149 7s. 7d. and £5,440 9s. 1d. respectively. The number of houses at Craigton is 454, as compared with 318 at Drumoyne.

Mr. McKINLAY: In view of the amazing statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT last week in relation to these two housing schemes, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to ask the officials of his Department to inquire into the reasons why the Glasgow Corporation discarded the Department responsible for the Drumoyne scheme?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am afraid that we have no power to do that. The discretion as to whether the Corporation carries out the work by direct labour or by contract is a matter entirely for the Corporation.

Mr. McKINLAY: If it has been proved that there is a saving of over £200 per house as between the two methods, surely it is in the interests of the public purse that the Government should inquire into it?

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is certainly the case that my hon. Friend's question and the answer have given widespread publicity to the figures to which he has referred, and I trust that they will be taken into cognisance by all local authorities.

Mr. McKINLAY: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, before sanctioning any extension of housing schemes by private enterprise in Glasgow for which a State subsidy is applied, he will cause an investigation into the financial arrangements covering such schemes?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Sanction is not required to any extension of housing schemes in Glasgow by private enterprise for which State subsidy is applied. In such cases the State subsidy is payable to the Corporation who make it available to private enterprise in accordance with their general scheme of assistance which has been approved by the Department of Health for Scotland.

Mr. McKINLAY: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation which will submit evidence that the housing scheme sanctioned is grossly over-subsidised?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Any evidence to the effect that State moneys are going unnecessarily in housing schemes will be gladly welcomed by the Department.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. Gentleman takes powers, if he has not got them, to see that, if anyone who is using private enterprise to erect houses uses other than Scotch slates, he will not get any subsidy?

TANNING TRADE (PIG SKIN SUPPLIES).

Mr. HARDIE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the tanning trade in Scotland is suffering from a shortage of pig skins; and what steps he proposes to take to increase the supply?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I have not received any representations to the effect that the tanning trade in Scotland is suffering from a shortage of pig skins. I am aware, however, that the number of pigs in the country varies from year to year. The Department of Agriculture for Scotland administer several schemes for the improvement of the breeding and rearing of pigs and my hon. Friend may rest assured that everything possible is being done to stimulate this industry.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received representations from
those who have tanneries, or will he receive a deputation from them?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already said that I have received no direct representations from the tanneries, but if they want to send a deputation I shall be quite prepared to meet it.

BUILDING SITES (ACQUISITION).

Mr. SCOTT: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that, while the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, enables local authorities to exercise compulsory powers to take land for working-class houses, there exists no legislation to enable private individuals to obtain compulsorily land in and around small towns and villages in Scotland for building dwelling-houses or shops; and whether the Government proposes to introduce legislation to compel landowners to make land available when and where required, subject to approval of the Department of Health, in view of the shortage of houses and existing unemployment?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am aware that there is no existing power enabling private individuals to obtain compulsorily land for building purposes. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the terms of paragraph (c) of Sub-section 1 of Section 44 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, empowering local authorities to acquire land for the purpose of disposing of it with a view to the erection thereon of dwelling houses, or to its use for other purposes incidental to the development of the land as a building estate.

POTATO INDUSTRY.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received copies of the resolutions passed recently at mass meetings of farmers, farm servants, and other agriculturists held in Scotland, and also passed by other agricultural bodies, on the subject of the crisis in the potato trade and of the effect of the importation of foreign bounty-fed cereals; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. ADAMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I fully appreciate the special difficulties in which arable farmers find them-
selves at the present time owing to the prevailing low prices for their chief products and, while I am not in a position at present to add anything to what has been said by my colleagues and myself in recent replies in the House, I am carefully examining the situation and possible means of alleviation in conjunction with the other Ministers who are concerned.

Mr. MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the very serious situation that exists in the county of Fife and other grain-producing areas, and will he not be in a position to make an immediate announcement as to what the policy of the Government is in view of the very strong feeling that exists throughout the country?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already assured the hon. Member that I am fully aware of the difficulties, and that I am carefully examining the situation and looking for a satisfactory solution.

Mr. HERBERT GIBSON: Is it not a fact that the hands of the Government are tied by an international Convention signed by the previous Government?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the practice on the Continent that all surplus potatoes and other crops are used for power alcohol distilleries?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WYE AND THAMES VALLEYS (DRAINAGE SCHEMES).

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: 21.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to be able to give the House an outline of his plans for the drainage of the Wye and Thames valleys, and of other works connected therewith?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): A drainage scheme for part of the Thames Valley has been submitted by the Thames Conservancy and the Surrey and Middlesex County Councils and has been approved. The Surrey County Council have also submitted a drainage scheme for the Wey Valley, and this has been approved, subject to certain engineering details. A grant towards
the cost of both of these works has been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: Is it likely that work will be started in a short time?

Mr. THOMAS: The difficulty is that we have no power as to the day on which work will commence. All we can do is to press upon the local authorities, when a scheme has been sanctioned, to speed it up.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: Are there any further difficulties, or is it merely a question of getting the work started?

Mr. THOMAS: I understand, so far as the grants are concerned, that that is satisfactorily settled. There are some technical engineering difficulties that are being negotiated.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the size of the grants he mentioned?

Mr. THOMAS: If that were asked, but it is not in the question.

GRAVESEND.

Mr. ALBERY: 22.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether schemes in connection with the relief of unemployment have been submitted by the municipality of Graves-end; and whether he has approved such schemes?

Mr. THOMAS: The Gravesend Town Council have submitted the outline of schemes in contemplation by them, subject to certain conditions. No formal application for a grant has yet been received by the Unemployment Grants Committee but discussion with the council is proceeding.

Mr. ALBERY: In view of the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has made to all Members of the House, is he able and willing to allow some latitude in the conditions of these relief schemes?

Mr. THOMAS: Instead of helping, I I am satisfied that it would hamper them if I were merely to announce some change from week to week or month to month. It would retard local authorities, it would be unfair to those who have already submitted schemes, and I repeat that the terms are the final terms of the Government.

Mr. ALBERY: Are not those terms in certain special circumstances subject to some variation?

Mr. THOMAS: There are circumstances which always arise and which are taken into consideration. The important principle is that there is no special benefit to one locality as against another.

LIVERPOOL.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 23.
asked the Lord Privy Seal the amount that has been approved to date for grant by the Unemployment Grants Committee to the Liver pool City Council for the relief of unemployment?

Mr. THOMAS: Since the 1st June, 1929, the Unemployment Grants Committee have approved 18 schemes estimated to cost £486,912 in respect of works undertaken by the Liverpool City Council for the relief of unemployment.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 24.
asked the Lord Privy Seal the number and the amount of schemes submitted for grant by the Liver pool Council since 4th February to date?

Mr. THOMAS: Since the 4th February, 1930, three schemes of work estimated to cost £45,542 have been submitted by the Liverpool City Council for the relief of unemployment. In addition a preliminary inquiry has been received regarding a proposed scheme, the estimated cost of which is £80,000.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: In view of the very large number of unemployed in Liverpool, will my right hon. Friend urge upon the Liverpool Council the vital necessity of pressing forward with more and larger schemes for the relief of unemployment, especially in view of the fact that we understand that the Liverpool rates are going down this year?

Mr. THOMAS: I am sure that we all welcome the rates going down, but recently, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend, I did specifically urge the Liverpool Corporation to speed up schemes, and this is the response.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: As the response seems to be very small, will my right hon. Friend still urge them?

Mr. PALMER: Of these schemes sanctioned, is my right hon. Friend in a position to say on how many work has been started?

Mr. THOMAS: No, I cannot.

SOUTHWARK.

Mr. DAY: 25.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any schemes have been submitted to him this year by the Southwark Borough Council; and can he give particulars?

Mr. THOMAS: Since the 1st January, 1930, no schemes have been submitted by the Southwark Metropolitan Borough Council to the Unemployment Grants Committee for a grant in connection with works for the relief of unemployment.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend ask them to hurry up and see if they cannot submit some schemes?

Mr. THOMAS: I would rather suggest that the influence of my hon. Friend should be used.

LEAD MINES, UPPER TEESDALE.

Mr. LAWTHER: 27.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will cause inquiries to be made into the possibility of developing the lead-mining industry of Upper Tees-dale, County Durham; and if he will, in the suggested inquiry, ascertain what new machinery is required to develop the industry and facilitate any loan for this purpose?

Mr. THOMAS: I am always ready to consider whether anything can be done to assist schemes which would lead to increased employment, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the Government is not able to guarantee loans for purposes such as that mentioned.

Mr. LAWTHER: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether or not this is a case which his City friends can take up?

Mr. THOMAS: Oh, yes, and I am quite sure that, with the blessing of the hon. Gentleman, it would be a special inducement.

Mr. McSHANE: Is it not notorious that the chief difficulty of the lead industry to-day is over production, and that during the last two months steps have been taken by the employers to limit it?

PORTSMOUTH.

Major Sir HERBERT CAYZER: 30.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his Department has received any schemes for the relief of unemployment from the
Portsmouth City Council; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of the schemes?

Mr. THOMAS: The outlines of a scheme for the construction of an aerodrome were received by the Unemployment Grants Committee a few days ago. Before any such scheme could be carried out Parliamentary sanction would probably be required. In addition, the outlines of a number of tentative road schemes have been submitted to my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Mr. McKINLAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that unemployment is so rife in Portsmouth, get in touch with the President of the Board of Trade and suggest that British sailors instead of Lascars should be employed in shipping?

CANADIAN WHEAT AND BRITISH PRODUCTS (EXCHANGE).

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 31.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now state briefly to what extent, in addition to the 40,000 tons of soft coal to be shipped as soon as the St. Lawrence is reopened, his arrangements of last autumn have been carried out by which the Canadian wheat pool were to send wheat regularly to us in vessels which would return with coal cargoes?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4th March to the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).

Mr. SAMUEL: Are we to infer, therefore, that the only thing which we have got out of this visit is the atmosphere which the Lord Privy Seal created in Canada?

Mr. THOMAS: No. The mining industry has a definite order in a new market for 40,000 tons of coal. The Lancashire cotton industry, I hope, will benefit by the representations made in connection with their tonnage. A number of other benefits accrued as well, but I think that, that is sufficient to justify the hon. Gentleman feeling what a successful trip it was.

TRAMCAR-BUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. ARNOTT: 32.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that the Unemployment Grants Committee declined to
accede to the application of the Leeds Corporation for a grant towards the cost of expediting the construction of 150 tramcars, giving as one reason for so deciding the absence of acute unemployment in the car-building industry; that inquiries have shown that unemployment is exceptionally acute in this industry and that the two firms at Preston and Leicester who built the last large fleet of cars for Leeds are almost at a standstill for lack of orders; and will he have this matter reconsidered?

Mr. THOMAS: This matter has been brought to my notice, and I am discussing it further with my right hon. Friend.

LEVEL CROSSINGS, LINCOLN.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: 34.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the increasing congestion at the level crossings in Lincoln, the Government have approved for grant the scheme for the construction of an avoiding road by the London and North Eastern Railway Company near the City of Lincoln; and whether, if the scheme has been finally approved, he can now say when the work will be commenced?

Mr. THOMAS: This scheme is still under consideration, but it is hoped that a decision will be reached very shortly. I may say that it is part of a big scheme submitted by this particular railway company.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government approve the principle of a grant for this particular scheme?

Mr. THOMAS: The difficulty, as I have said, is that it is part of a whole series of improvements embodied in a general scheme submitted. No particular view has been expressed on the scheme which the hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the urgency of alleviating this particular nuisance in Lincoln, having regard to the fact that an increasing number of people are regularly being held up in this city, as I have been for 20 years? I estimate that I have lost 20 hours each year?

FORTH ROAD-BRIDGE SCHEME.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 35.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the resolution passed at the conference of
local authorities recently held in Edinburgh to consider the Forth road-bridge scheme and of the contributions then intimated, he can state what amount the Government would be prepared to contribute towards the scheme and the conditions which would attach to such a grant?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. The verbatim note of the conference was only received last week. While there has not been time to study it in full, the proceedings appear to have been inconclusive. I understand that certain contributions were indicated as likely to be made by Edinburgh (£100,000) and Dunfermline (£8,000) towards the cost of a Bridge Scheme. The total cost of such a scheme would, however, exceed £6 millions. I am not in a position to make any further statement in the matter until I have had an opportunity of carefully examining the report of the meeting.

Mr. MILLAR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities are anxious to know exactly what the Government view is about this matter, and what the Government are prepared to do in offering a contribution, and will he not consider indicating definitely what contribution the Government are prepared to make?

Colonel ASHLEY: Ought it not to be for the local authorities to indicate what they are prepared to give?

Mr. MORRISON: I can quite understand the point which the hon. Member raises, that the local authorities want to know what the Government think of the scheme and how much they will contribute, and that is exactly what I want to know from the local authorities—how much importance they attach to the scheme on traffic grounds, and how that importance is reflected in cash.

RAILWAY COACHES (LIGHTING).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 36.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the fact that there are still, approximately, 30,000 gas-lit coaches on British railway steam-worked coaching stock, representing about 50 per cent. of the whole, he will consider the advisability, in the interests of employment and public safety, of making a condition, in connection
with Government grants or loans to railway companies, that they should convert this dangerous system to that of lighting by electricity?

Mr. THOMAS: As the reply is a long one and involves figures, I will, with the right hon. Gentleman's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but he will be pleased to know that good progress in this connection is being made.

Following is the reply:

The figure of 30,000 appears to relate to the number of gas-lit coaches at 1st November, 1928. Since that date, the railway companies have made further progress with the conversion of their gas-lit coaches in the normal course. The following proposals (which are additional to the ordinary programme) involving expenditure under this head have been included by the companies among the works which they are undertaking in fulfilment of their obligations to the Government in connection with the repeal of the Railway Passenger Duty:



£


Great Western Railway Company
80,000


London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company
208,840


London and North Eastern Rail way Company
56,000


It is understood, however, to be uncertain whether the last item of the above will be proceeded with. In addition, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company have obtained a grant under the Development Act in respect of the expenditure, estimated at £287,500, involved in the substitution of electric lighting for gas in a further 1,250 coaches.

The Minister of Transport, has made representations on several occasions within the last few years to the railway companies as to the desirability, in the interests of safety, of accelerating their programme of substituting electric lighting for gas in their passenger coaches, and he will renew such representations if it appears from the returns of their rolling stock, which the companies have now undertaken to submit annually, that the process of conversion is not proceeding at a satisfactory rate. In view, however, of the large expenditure involved, I do not consider that the railway companies could reasonably be asked to undertake the conversion of the whole of their pas-
senger stock at once, or that a condition such as that suggested in the question could be attached to any grants made to the companies for other works. Apart from the gradual conversion of their existing stock, the practice of the railway companies is to equip all new passenger stock with electric lighting equipment, with the exception of a certain restaurant cars in which gas is utilised. Consequently, as the companies' existing stock has to be replaced, the proportion of coaches lighted by electricity will be increased.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 37.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the reported intention to hold an Imperial Economic Conference this year, he is preparing for submission to this gathering specific proposals calculated to relieve unemployment in this country; and, if so, of what nature?

Mr. THOMAS: The agenda for the Imperial Conference is now under consideration. Trade questions will be included, and I hope that the conference will result in mutual benefit to trade and employment in this country and the Dominions.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a definite date when the conference will meet?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir.

Mr. WISE: Will any specific proposals for the agenda be submitted to this House first?

Mr. THOMAS: As far as I am aware, it has never been the practice to submit proposals for the agenda of an Imperial or Economic Conference to this House, and I have no reason to believe that there will be any departure on this occasion.

MERCANTILE MARINE (CHINESE SEAMEN).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the British s.s. "Misty Law" has recently paid off her whole British crew at Rotterdam and replaced them by Chinese; that the "Traprain Law" of the same line has just replaced her whole crew in Glasgow, in all departments, by Chinese, who were sent up from London to Glasgow for the purpose; that both these vessels are engaged in trade between Great Britain,
Australia, and New Zealand; and whether, in view of the prevalent unemployment amongst British seamen, he will make endeavours with shipowners to avoid such action in the future?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I understand that the crew of the s.s. "Misty Law," engaged at Rotterdam on the 23rd January last, included Chinese firemen, cooks and stewards, the officers and the deck crew being European; but the only white British seamen replaced by Chinese were the cooks and stewards, numbering five in all; the firemen on the previous voyage were Arabs. These British seamen could have signed on again if they had wished. The crew of the s.s. "Traprain Law," engaged at Glasgow on the 28th January, included Chinese firemen, cooks and assistant stewards, the officers and the deck crew being British; but as this was the vessel's first voyage there has been no replacement of British by Chinese in this instance. While I am anxious to see as many British seamen employed as possible, the matter is not one in which the Board of Trade can intervene.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask when the President of the Board of Trade will be able to look into this matter seriously. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I am well aware that he has been much engaged on another great measure, but I should like to know when he will be able to look into this matter in view of the increasing number of British seamen unemployed and the unfortunate increase in the number of Asiatics employed in British ships?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have considered this matter from time to time, and generally I have done everything in my power. But there are definite limits to anything which the Board of Trade can do.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are not the conditions now very much different in view of the great unemployment in the country? British seamen cannot get another job now as easily as they could a year ago, and will my right hon. Friend consider this matter in connection with the proposals of the Lord Privy Seal?

Mr. SANDHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a special appeal to the alleged patriotic British shipowners to engage British labour?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In view of the fact that these ships ply in the Tropics is it not a disadvantage that British seamen should be employed instead of Orientals?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Sir K. WOOD: 28.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can now make a statement concerning the Channel Tunnel?

Mr. THOMAS: I hope that copies of the Report will be in the Vote Office by 4 p.m. on Friday.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when he thinks that the Government will be in a position to make a statement on the matter?

Mr. THOMAS: I have stated that the report is only being printed at this moment, and the Government have not yet considered it.

Mr. OLDFIELD: After what we heard last night about the development in the draught of ships, I hone that my right hon. Friend will not—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIAN COTTON GOODS (IMPORTS).

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been able to obtain figures of the amount of cotton goods imported into this country from Russia during the last quarter of 1929?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total declared value of cotton goods of all descriptions, so far as they are distinguished in the import list, imported into the United Kingdom and registered as consigned from Russia during the last quarter of 1929, amounted to £1. The consignment consisted of cotton lace.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Does the President of the Board of Trade think it possible for goods to come from Russia in a roundabout way, so that we are not able to find them out?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should like to have notice of that question. I ought to tell the hon. Member that on the information before me there is no proof of the recent imports alleged in some quarters in Lancashire.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: The other day the right hon. Member informed us that the amount was something like £5,000. Can he tell us why it has gone down to £1?

Mr. GRAHAM: If the hon. Member looks at the other reply ho will see that it refers to a somewhat different point.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures can be entirely relied upon? Is it not the cause that importation takes place, but that it is not reflected in the figures of the Board of Trade?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have indicated in reply to a previous question that it is difficult. I have the matter still under inquiry, and all I can say is that on the statistics before us there is no proof of these imports.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: If I put down a question in a week's time, may I hope for a definite reply?

COTTON TRADE.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the report of the sub-committee inquiring into the cotton trade?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on Tuesday last in reply to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. H. Gibson).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to add to the information available?

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give any approximate date when any of these reports will be received? There is another report about iron and steel.

Mr. SNOWDEN: My right hon. Friend stated only a few days ago that the Committee are expediting their work as rapidly as possible. We realise the im-
portance of this matter, and I can assure the House that there will be no unnecessary delay.

Mr. HACKING: Have the Government appointed a new chariman of that committee lately?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was chairman for some time, but he has been called away out of the country so often that another member is acting in his place.

TARIFF TRUCE CONFERENCE.

Sir K. WOOD: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make a further statement concerning the proceedings of the Tariff Truce Conference; and what is the estimated cost of the attendance of the British delegates?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As regards the first part of the question, I can add nothing at present to the statement which I made to the House last Tuesday. As regards the second part, I understand that, on the assumption that the Conference lasts a month, the cost of the British delegation will be about £1,000.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to inform the House of the very important decision that was arrived at yesterday, when the British scheme was superseded, and the French proposals were adopted and how the British delegates—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better put down a question.

Sir K. WOOD: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to make a statement as to what happened yesterday?

Mr. GRAHAM: These matters are still under consideration at Geneva; I propose to return to Geneva to-morrow, and at the earliest possible moment I will inform the House as to the decision come to.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the report appearing in the Press is correct, that the French refuse to have anything to do with the British proposals, and that the French and Belgians, and, I think, the Germans, have agreed to an alternative scheme; and, if so, what action does he propose to take?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should not like to express any view at all on Press reports, but I can tell the House that various plans are under consideration at the moment. I can only repeat that at the very earliest point, I will give the House information as to any decision that is reached.

Mr. J. JONES: May I ask how much more of this kind of thing we have to stand from those gentlemen opposite?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BOARD OF TRADE (REGISTRAR AND SOLICITOR).

Dr. DAVIES: 41.
asked the President of of the Board of Trade whether he will examine the organisation of the Departments of the Registrar and Solicitor to the Board of Trade with a view to enabling those Departments to deal more effectually with a state of affairs in which nearly 2,600 public companies are now in default in the filing of their balance sheets?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Like the hon. Member I am anxious to secure that there shall be no undue delay in the filing of balance sheets by public companies, but I have no reason to believe that the procedure which I have outlined in previous replies is ineffective.

PROMOTION.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the continued recruitment of open competition entrants to the executive and clerical classes prejudicially affects the promotion prospects of clerical officers, writing assistants, typists, and P-class clerks, and results in continued insecurity amongst temporary clerks; and whether he is prepared to limit open competitive recruitment to the executive clerical and writing assistant classes to a point which permits of free consideration of the claims to promotion of persons already serving, and a declaration of security to be given to the remaining temporary staffs?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): Recourse is had to open competitive examination for the executive and clerical classes only for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of the Departments after the claims to promotion of all suitable officers therein have been fully considered. With regard to the writing assistant examination I am prepared to continue the arrangements announced by my predecessor on the 22nd November, 1928, in reply to a question from the hon. and gallant Member for the Dulwlch Division (Sir F. Hall) whereby suitable ex-Service temporary clerks who may become redundant will be re-employed where practicable on a temporary basis in posts normally filled by writing assistants. On the question of security, as regards ex-Service clerks, I would refer my hon. Friend to the assurance I gave in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for the Ealing Division (Sir H. Nield) on the 31st October last. As regards temporary women clerks, I decided in October last to continue, pending the Report of the Royal Commission, the pledge given by my predecessor in reply to a question on the 4th December, 1928, from my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of these replies.

Mr. BROWN: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, in spite of the assurance referred to in his reply, large numbers of young girls are being given permanent posts in the service, while ex-Service men are in a state of insecurity?

Mr. SPEAKER: Commander Bellairs.

Mr. BROWN: On a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: What is the point of Order?

Mr. BROWN: I want to ask whether it is not customary to reply to a supplementary question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that the supplementary question was in the nature of giving information.

Mr. BROWN: In those circumstances, may I give notice that I will take an opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

BUNKERS FOR FISHING AND COASTING VESSELS (LEVY).

Lieut.-Commander KEN-WORTHY: 43 and 44.
asked the President of
the Board of Trade (1) whether it is intended in the final arrangements for the reorganisation of the coal industry to exclude bunkers for fishing vessels from levy;
(2) whether in his proposals for the reorganisation of the coal industry it is intended to exempt bunkers for the coasting trade from levy; and if he is aware that the recognised home-trade limits for coasting shipping include rot only the British coast but the whole of the Continent between the Elbe and Brest and including the River Seine?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that, assuming Clauses 2 (3) (a) and 3 (2) (g) of the Coal Mines Bill are accepted by Parliament, the imposition of a levy will be a matter for decision by the Central Council, that the power given in the Bill is permissive only, and that there are opportunities for arbitration if the power is unfairly used.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great apprehension in the fishing industry and the coasting trade as to whether the interests of these two hard-hit industries are being safeguarded? Previous experience under the Five Counties scheme does not encourage them.

Mr. SKELTON: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that there is grave apprehension throughout industries of every sort?

Mr. GRAHAM: That may be, but in the detailed Debate this afternoon the Government, I hope, will be able to remove a great deal of that misapprehension.

Major MCKENZIE WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that during the last coal strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lock-out!"]—during the last coal stoppage, it was the common practice for fishing vessels to take their fish to Holland in order that they might get the opportunity of buying cheap coal? Thus trade was taken away from this country.

Mr. GRAHAM: The circumstances of the coal stoppage were very different. Later in the day, I hope to be able to show the House the safeguards which
exist in the matter of bunkering abroad unless the very best conditions are given by the industry in this country.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last Parliament a rebate under the Freights Rebate Act was given to fishing vessels by Parliament itself, and not left to any Committee?

Mr. GRAHAM: The de-rating scheme was again a very different proposition. I propose to refer also to that particular topic later this afternoon.

EXPLOSION, CASTLEFORD.

Mr. F. HALL: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any statement to make with regard to the explosion which took place at the Old Silkstone seam of the Allerton Bywater Colliery, Castleford, near Pontefract, Yorkshire, on Monday, the 10th March?

The SECRETARY of MINES (Mr. Ben Turner): This explosion occurred about half-past nine yesterday morning in the Old East District of the Silkstone seam. I deeply regret to say that four persons lost their lives and that two others were burnt, one of them very seriously. From preliminary investigations by the Divisional Inspector of Mines, the explosion appears to have followed immediately after the firing of a shot in the coal at the end of a longwall face.
Further investigations are in progress, and will take some time, but I propose to present to the House at the earliest possible moment a full report by the Divisional Inspector on the causes and circumstances of the explosion. I will then consider whether any useful purpose would be served by a formal investigation.
The House, I know, will tender to the relatives of the deceased men their fullest sympathy and express their hopes for the speedy recovery of the injured and also their appreciation of the heroism displayed by all those engaged in the work of rescue and recovery.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Seeing that we have now had four explosions within the past fortnight, does not the hon. Gentleman think that we are taking more risks in waiting for the absolutely per-
fectly automatic gas alarm than we would be if we applied a compulsory order forthwith?

Mr. TURNER: I would ask the hon. Member to wait for the Report. The Department are very much concerned at these continued explosions, and every effort is being made by the inspectors and by the Department to arrive at some conclusion that may make mining more safe.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to guarantee to the House that the utmost expedition will be practised in endeavouring to secure what he calls the further test of the automatic alarm which is now in progress?

Mr. TURNER: I can assure the hon. Member that no time will be wasted in arranging the further tests which have been under consideration.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the recurrence of these explosions, will the hon. Gentleman state what extra steps have been taken by his Department beyond those taken in normal times?

Mr. TURNER: I would rather have notice of that question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the recurring explosions, cannot the hon. Gentleman say that his Department are making special efforts other than would have been made some time ago?

Mr. TURNER: The Department are taking very special steps.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What are they?

Mr. TURNER: In one direction, we are asking owners of collieries to give every assistance possible to the practical improvements of gas detectors, so that thorough practical tests may be made; and we are hoping to have their cooperation, along with the co-operation of those engaged in the trade, to see what useful detectors can be applied.

Miss LEE: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that if inspectors underground were confined to the work of inspection, instead of being called upon frequently to do all sorts of onerous jobs, it would help in maintaining the state of the mines?

Mr. TURNER: As far as I am aware, the inspectors are doing inspectors' work, and not extra work as suggested by the hon. Member.

Miss LEE: I hope that the Secretary for Mines knows that I mean safety men. If he desires further information, I shall be glad to supply it.

Mr. TURNER: Safety men are different men from inspectors, but I will look into the point which the hon. Member has made.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

WIRELESS TELEPHONY.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the great divergence of opinion in the merits of the various systems of wireless telephony and the Imperial interests involved, he will appoint an independent Committee to investigate the merits and to test the various systems?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen) on the 26th February.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the greatest experts in wireless including Senatore Marconi have emphatically stated that the larger aerial is far and away the best, and also that it was the recommendation of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference, and will he not have a comparative test made of these systems?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The views of Senatore Marconi were heard and submitted to independent experts.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the Post Office then afraid of having a test?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The test which was immediately practicable was made about last May.

Mr. BRACKEN: Is it the settled policy of the Government to patronise American interests in preference to British?

VOLUNTARY RESIGNATIONS.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many civil servants employed by the Post
Office have within the last 20 years voluntarily resigned after 20 years', 15 years', 10 years', and five years' service, respectively; whether all these men have been deprived of any payment of any sort in respect of gratuity or superannuation; whether the propriety of withholding these payments under such conditions as these has been considered by his Department; and, if so, when, and with what result?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am informed by the Postmaster-General that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, the statutory conditions for an award of a gratuity or a pension under the Superannuation Acts would not be fulfilled if the service were terminated by purely voluntary retirement, and accordingly the answers to both these parts are in the negative. The last part of the question does not arise.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Has the hon. Gentleman received any representations from the Postmaster-General on this subject?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MUSEUM (GRANTS).

Mr. MANDER: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to consider making additional grants to the British Museum to enable it to carry out the home excavation work recommended by the Royal Commission on National Museums and Galleries, in view of the additional employment that would thus be created, as well as the increased attraction to visitors from abroad, if important buried Roman cities, such as Uriconium, were excavated and made permanently available for inspection?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The Treasury have asked the Trustees of the British Museum for their observations on the recommendations of the Royal Commission with regard to excavation work at home.

Mr. MANDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good thing to try to make this country a land fit for Americans to visit, in the way indicated?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. DAY: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons in the latest financial year who availed themselves of the allowance of discount for the prepayment of Income Tax under Schedule D assessments according to Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1918; and can he give the gross amount so allowed?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The total amount of discount allowed in the last financial year, ended 31st March, 1929, in respect of prepayment of Income Tax under Schedule D, was £619. I regret that I am unable to state the number of persons who availed themselves of this allowance.

Mr. DAY: Does not my right hon. Friend think that if greater publicity were given to this advantage more people might avail themselves of it?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is a matter of opinion. I think that the real reason why it is taken advantage of to such a small extent is that it does not pay anybody.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND- TROYTE: 53 and 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will consider extending the exemption from Income Tax under Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1921, to pension funds which provide pensions for the widows of employés, seeing that the payment of this tax makes it-necessary for these funds to restrict their benefits;
(2) if he can estimate the loss to the Exchequer which would be caused by extending the provisions of Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1921, to those pension funds which provide pensions to the widows of employés?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the Budget Statement or furnish any estimate at the present stage of the cost of such an alteration of the law.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give sympathetic consideration to this matter?

Mr. SNOWDEN: This is a very old question, and has been raised in previous Debates on Finance Bills during the past four or five years. It is a matter to which I certainly will give consideration.

FRANCE (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. MANDER: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of debt owed by France to this country, remitted up to date, and forming a charge on the British Exchequer?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The net War Debt of France to Great Britain at the date of funding amounted to £600,000,000. On the 5 per cent. tables the present value of the annuities to be paid by France under the Funding Agreement is £227,000,000. On this basis, therefore, the settlement was equivalent to the remission of £373,000,000.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many battleships France will be able to build on this money?

RED BIDDY (DUTY).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of duty paid by the Scottish beverage known as red biddy; and what is the total amount of revenue received from this duty?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I understand that the name "Red Biddy" is a term applied locally in certain districts to cheap red wines of either British or foreign origin. It is not a designation known to the Revenue, and I am, therefore, unable to give the particulars asked for.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not collecting duty on this beverage; and are we also to understand that he considers it a teetotal drink?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not able to answer the last part of the question, but, in regard to the first part, if it be made from wines, then of course duty is paid.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that we were told the other day that some of it is manufactured in this country; that we were also informed that it is very likely that it contains spirits, and will he have careful inquiry made into this matter?

BEER AND TOBACCO DUTIES.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the rate of duty per standard barrel of beer on 1st January, 1914, 1st January, 1919, and 1st January, 1930, respectively; the total
amount of duty collected during the last financial year; the rate of duty upon leaf and manufactured tobacco on 1st January, 1914, 1st January, 1919, and 1st January, 1930, respectively; and the total amount of duty collected during the last financial year?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Information on all the points mentioned is available in the Reports of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for 1913–14 (Command Paper No. 7574), 1919–20 (Command Paper No. 1082) and 1928–29 (Command Paper No. 3435). The rates of the beer and tobacco duties were the same on 1st January, 1930, as in 1928–29,

Sir W. WAYLAND: Is it not a fact that there has been no reduction whatever in the War Duties on either beer or tobacco, in spite of the fact that the stimulant called tea has been relieved of all duties?

Viscountess ASTOR: The stimulant called tea! People do not beat their wives on tea.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING AND IMPORT DUTIES.

REVENUE AND PROTECTIVE CATEGORIES.

Mr. ALBERY: 49 and 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which import duties he places in the category of those which have been imposed for the definite purpose of protection; and the dates on which such duties expire;
(2) which import duties he places in the category of those which have been imposed expressly for revenue purposes; and if he will give any available figures concerning the amounts realised so far during the current year for each duty?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As the information required involves tabular statements of some length, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The following are the duties that were imposed for the purpose of protection:

Duty and Date of Expiration.

Lace and Embroidery—1st July, 1930.
Cutlery, Gloves and Gas Mantles—22nd December, 1930.
Packing and Wrapping Paper—1st May, 1931.
1108
Translucent Pottery—19th April, 1932.
Buttons—28th April, 1933.
Hollow-ware—13th June, 1933.
Hops—16th August, 1933.
Key Industry Duty—19th August, 1936.

All the remaining import duties were imposed, or stated to be imposed, expressly for revenue purposes, and the approximate amount of revenue derived from each of them during the period 1st April, 1929, to 28th February, 1930, is as follows:



£


Spirits
5,570,000


Beer
5,413,900


Wine
4,398,100


Table Waters
36,400


Cocoa
629,300


Coffee
187,100


Chicory
32,900


Sugar, etc.
11,028,000


Dried Fruits
450,600


Tobacco
57,352,600


Matches Mechanical and Lighters
2,011,300


Cinematograph Films
268,700


Clocks and Watches
562,200


Motor Cars and Motor Cycles
2,277,000


Musical Instruments
341,000


Silk and Artificial Silk
4,192,800


Hydrocarbon Oil
13,599,700

SILK INDUSTRY.

Mr. REMER: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of imported silk and artificial silk goods at present lying in bond, excluding raw silk and waste silk?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The particulars requested are not available.

Mr. REMER: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of net revenue obtained from the Silk Duties during the present financial year?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Up to 28th February, £5,729,200 approximately.

MOTOR INDUSTRY.

Mr. REMER: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number and value of foreign motor cars at present lying in bond?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: There are at present approximately 1,300 foreign motor cars (including complete chassis) lying in bond of an import value of about £215,000.

Mr. REMER: In view of the great difficulty which this is causing in the trade, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the difficulty is removed at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not see that this raises any difficulty at all, because the number of cars in bond now is just about the average—just about a month's supply.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is there not an increase of 400 since the right hon. Gentleman answered my question a fortnight ago?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I really must correct that statement. I refer now to foreign cars. The question which the hon. and gallant Member put to me referred to American cars.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the number of British patriots who are importing these cars?

Oral Answers to Questions — ESTIMATES (TREASURY VOTE).

Commander BELLAIRS: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in the Civil Estimates the Committee of Imperial Defence and Economic Advisory Council are treated as one estimate under Class 1, Vote 4 B1, so that it is impossible to dissociate one from the other or to discuss them separately; and whether, in view of the different services they perform, he will give directions for separate estimates to be shown?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: Subhead B1 of the Treasury Vote relates to the Offices of the Cabinet, Committee of Imperial Defence and Economic Advisory Council. This grouping is necessitated by the fact that several of the officers whose salaries are borne on the sub-head perform services for more than one of these bodies.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAWLERS (WIRELESS APPARATUS).

Mr. ARNOTT: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many trawlers are still unequipped with wireless apparatus; and if he will consider what immediate steps can be taken to ensure that all British trawlers operating in distant northern waters shall be so equipped?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available, as trawlers are not separately distinguished from, other fishing vessels in the official records. Under existing legislation the provision of wireless telegraph apparatus on cargo or fishing vessels of less than 1,600 tons gross is not compulsory, and the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea last year did not recommend the extension of compulsion to ships below that size.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of making it compulsory for one ship, either in a trawler or drifter fleet at sea, to carry wireless, in order to give necessary information in regard to storms to the rest of the ships?

Mr. GRAHAM: I will make inquiries with regard to the possibility of the hon. Member's suggestion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the Government propose to go with the Coal Mines Bill this evening?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I understand that, when the Bill was last under discussion, an arrangement was made to complete the remaining stages in a certain number of days, and therefore the allocation of the time rests mainly with the Members of the Opposition. We do not want to sit late. Perhaps the best thing would be for the parties to get together, say about 10 or 11 o'clock, and decide at what point they would like the proceedings to be adjourned.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that is a very convenient course. Obviously, we do not wish to sit late, but it might be that it would be convenient to dispose of certain Amendments of no great importance before we adjourn in order that we might begin the next day's proceedings with Amendments which are important; and, on that understanding, my hon. Friends will agree to the Motion which is on the Paper in the name of the Government.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings in Committee on the Coal Mines Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

WORKS COUNCILS.

Mr. MANDER: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of consultative works councils in factories and workshops.
In introducing this Bill, I am endeavouring to make a sincere contribution to the new order in industry of partnership and co-operation. This Measure is based upon chapter 8 of the well-known Liberal Yellow Book, and is an attempt to put into legislative form the proposals in that chapter. While it represents Liberal policy, I feel there are Members in all parts of the House who will be in sympathy with the proposals of the Bill. I am quite certain that hon. Members opposite, when they have had an opportunity of studying the details of the Measure, will find themselves in full sympathy with it, and I believe the same may be said of many hon. Members on this side. The Leader of the Opposition made on one occasion a very notable speech in which he used the words "Peace in our time." I believe he meant that quite sincerely, and the proposals in this Bill are in full sympathy with the ideas of that speech, though I dare say it goes a good deal further than he would perhaps care about at the present time.
In asking permission for the Bill to be introduced, I am only asking that it may be printed, in order that the Clauses and the Schedules may be carefully studied. The House will not be committed in any way to the principles of the Bill, but only to the idea that the proposal is one worthy of consideration and of study to see whether it is not capable of being made into a useful piece of legislation. In Sweden and Germany there are Measures on the Statute Book similar to the one I am proposing, and I am not bringing forward this Bill as a mere theorist, because every single proposal in it has been in active operation in my own business for a number of years past. I have been chairman of the works committee there, with a workman as vice-chairman, and I am certain that everyone who has served on that council during many years will agree that it has been of great use to the employer and to the employed, and has created a splendid feeling of good will and helpful sympathy on all sides.
The actual proposals of the Bill are that on the appointed day there should be set up in every factory with more than 50 employés a works council representative of every section of persons working there, whether directors, managers, office staff, technical staff, foremen or workmen. It is intended that the Ministry of Labour shall set up a Works Council Advisory Committee in order to frame suitable rules for factories in different industries, and that in constituting that, Advisory Committee the Ministry shall consult the General Council of the Trade Union Congress, the National Confederation of Employers' Associations and the Association of Joint Industrial Councils. The functions of these works councils must necessarily be consultative, it is impossible to interfere with the functions of management, but what will be ensured is that when the management has to take action it will be fully informed of and familiar with the views and the wishes of every section in the works, and therefore will naturally desire to conciliates and work with them. There is a proposal that on appropriate occasions, and subject to agreement, both sides, employers and employed, shall have the right to bring in representatives of their organisations. In my own particular case we have had all the time the advantage of the presence in an advisory capacity of the secretary of the trade union, and found him very helpful and useful indeed. No proposal of this kind would have or should have any hope of success if it were started with the idea of weakening the power of trade unions. It must be based on trade union co-operation, just as much as on the cooperation of associations of employers.
The duties of these councils would be, first of all—mentioning only a few of them—to discuss the various matters relative to the conduct of factories which are indicated in the Schedule of the Bill. Another duty will be to agree upon suitable rules to be put in force in factories. No doubt in many cases the existing rules would be adopted at once, but instead of having orders imposed from above, as is the case at the present time, you would try to get the consent and agreement of the persons who have to obey the regulations, try to get government by consent in a factory instead of dictation from above. Another duty will be to provide appropriate machinery for dealing with appeals against dismissals whether they
be regarded as cases of victimisation, as sometimes unfortunately happens, or dismissals for reasons of inefficiency. If a man or woman thinks he has got a reasonable cause for appeal he can be assured that a sympathetic hearing will be given to him by some appropriate tribunal, again without interfering with the right of the management to take the final action and to have the final authority. That is essential. There is no intention of interfering with that. Another duty the works council would perform would be that if owing to a shortage of work a number of the hands had to be discharged the men themselves would he consulted beforehand, in order that the discharges might take place in such a way as to be least embarrassing to the unfortunate people concerned.
I have given a brief indication of what the Bill contains. The intention is to try to introduce the personal element, the human touch, into industry once more; to try to make everybody feel that every business is the joint concern of all those who are connected with it; to try to set up machinery which will enable the workers as well as the employers to share in the control, in the conduct and in the profits, and what is more, take their own share in the increased dividends of human happiness and industrial prosperity which, I believe, would arise from a Measure of this kind.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mander, Sir Robert Aske, Mr. Birkett, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Graham White, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Major Nathan, Mr. Philip Oliver and Mr. Simon.

WORKS COUNCILS BILL,

"to provide for the establishment of consultative works councils in factories and workshops," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Fylde Water Board) Bill, without Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bradford Extension) Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled,
An Act to confer further powers on the Falmouth Waterworks Company; and for other purposes." [Falmouth Water Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRADFORD EXTENSION) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

FALMOUTH WATER BILL [Lords] (Certified Bill).

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 5th March.]

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions of central scheme.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), I am not quite sure as to the meaning of it. It seems to me vague and indefinite, but the hon. and gallant Member will no doubt explain in moving it.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, after the word "mines," to insert the words
including representatives of owners dissenting from the scheme proportionate to the tonnage controlled by such dissentients.
4.0 p.m.
The object of this Amendment is to make quite certain that on the central council there shall be representatives of those owners who do not agree with the scheme. Under Clause 1, a bare majority is required to make a scheme, and I feel that it is very desirable, in order to smooth the working of the council, that representatives of those owners who, in the first instance, do not agree to the scheme, shall be on the council, and that the difficulties arising between those who approve and those who disapprove of the scheme, should as far as possible be settled quietly, and on the council itself, rather than that there should be friction, as there must be if you have a council composed only of those who approve the scheme. It has been that the genius of the English people is our power to convert a hostile critic into a valuable colleague. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's scheme is far more likely to succeed if those who have objection—possibly some very reasonable objection—against the scheme or against some particular part, are in a position to raise their objection with those who approve, and to discuss the matter quietly round a table, rather than if they feel that, under the force of law, if this Bill becomes an Act, they have to put up with
things with which they do not agree. They can put their points to members of the council and discuss them, and I feel certain that they would accept the position, provided they had the opportunity of putting their points of view, and, if necessary, of voting. It is because I believe that some Amendment of this sort would do a great deal to ensure the smooth working of the Measure, that I have put it on the Paper. I am not quite certain whether the right hon. Gentleman in putting in the words "of all the owners of coal mines in the several districts" intended that the dissenting owners should be represented. It is partly to clear that up that I have put down this Amendment, and partly also, because I feel so strongly that if this Bill is to operate at all, it can only operate by getting the greatest amount of possible consent among the owners.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I appreciate the point which has been put by the hon. and gallant Member, but I trust that one or two words of explanation will be sufficient to remove the difficulty to which he has referred. The Committee is here considering the central scheme and not the district schemes, and I should imagine that the Committee would take the view that, as regards the dissentient minority in any district, it was much more important that it should be represented on the district scheme rather than on the National Board or the central scheme, to which each of the 21 districts, or whatever the number ultimately becomes, will send their representatives. Then, as regards the central scheme, there is a further difficulty in terms of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, because he really proposes a form of proportional representation related to tonnage, and if, for example, in any district there were a 15 per cent. minority, which is roughly the position in South Wales, that would mean that the central body would require to be very greatly enlarged in order to maintain that relationship or that percentage, if proportional representation on these lines was to apply.
Therefore, I think that, as regards the central scheme, it would be impossible to accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposition, and, as regards the district schemes, it is of course, the whole
object of the Government in this legislation to see that these schemes are representative of all the owners. Without in any way committing myself at the moment, I think we might rather assume that all points of view in the district scheme will he represented, because that district scheme is to be representative of every owner in the area. In many areas the minorities are much larger than the 15 per cent. in South Wales, so that they could hardly fail to obtain representation on these district executive bodies. I think that, perhaps, with that assurance, and with the view which, I trust, the Committee will take that minorities will find representation, we might very well leave it, as I could not tie myself to an allocation in the Bill, because all that makes for difficulties in the operation of the central and district schemes. I would leave it to the judgment of the owners, together with the rights of any minority, of course, to go to arbitration, and to have the other forms of protection which, under this Measure, they already enjoy.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I appreciate the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman has raised as to having an unduly large central council and that to give what he calls proportional representation to those who assent and those who dissent in each of the 21 districts, he might get a body of undue size. But he seemed to me to agree that, whether you are dealing with the central body or the local bodies, minorities ought not to be made to suffer, and that any dissentient minority should have a reasonable chance of making its case heard. Plainly, if we make no provision here for the representation of minorities on the central board, the only chance of the views of minorities being represented there will be if the district boards, who send their representative there, can speak with full consideration not only for the majority but for the minority. It seems to me that whether that will happen or not entirely depends on whether, in fact, when you come to the constitution of the district board, you are going to get the representation of minorities. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we may be quite certain the minority will make its voice heard on the district board, because there will always be something like 15 per cent.
of dissentients, and there may be a considerably higher proportion, so that, therefore, we may be quite sure that they will get some members on the district board.
The action which we shall take on this Amendment really turns on whether the assurance given by the President of the Board of Trade is valid in the terms of his Bill. This Clause simply says that the central council shall be composed of representatives of all the owners, without saying how they are to be appointed. Presumably each executive body will send one or more of its representatives. Clause 3 (1) says:
Every district scheme shall provide for the election of the executive board by all the owners of coal mines in the district.
It is perfectly true that every coalowner will be entitled to vote, but there is no guarantee, unless the right hon. Gentleman undertakes to put in some special provision, that a minority of owners will get any representation at all. Supposing there are 500 coalowners in a district; 300 of them are in favour of the scheme, and 200 are opposed to it. Unless some provision is put in, when they come to vote they vote exactly as we do in this House, the 300 coalowners will have a majority of 100 over the dissentients, and will be perfectly able to put on the executive board their representatives, while the dissentient coalowners may not get a single representative on that board. Therefore, I think that the President of the Board of Trade, if he asks us not to press this Amendment now, ought to give us an undertaking that when he comes to Clause 3 he will put in a specific provision to make sure—there is an Amendment, I think, in the name of my hon. Friend to that effect—that the membership of the executive board shall be roughly in the proportion of the assentient8 and dissentients. If he gives us that assurance, probably we shall not wish to press this Amendment, because we should get the district board representing all shades of opinion; otherwise, under Clause 3 as drafted, there appears to be no sort of guarantee that the minority, however large, will get any representation on the central council at all.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: I want to reinforce what my right hon. Friend has just said, and I feel encouraged by the
remarks of the President of the Board of Trade that he might carry this point in his mind and meet us some way. In order to make this Measure work even approximately well, we must go as far as possible on lines of conciliation rather than of opposition. It is true that it would be cumbersome to get a proportional representation of minorities on the central organisation, and I can see the difficulties in the way of the Amendment as drafted; but the principle is important, and I earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate that and to give us an undertaking that, between now and the Report stage, he will submit something to achieve the point desired. While it is true that there is a minority having a voice in the election of the district organisations, there is no guarantee, as my right hon. Friend has just said, that on the district boards, there will be someone definitely voicing that minority view. Still less will that be the case on the central board. It must be clear to all who want to tackle this problem in order to get a good solution that to have a definite proportional representation on the central board is not practicable, but I think we are not asking too much to suggest that there should be a definite undertaking, resting perhaps on the proportion of minority views as ascertained in the districts, that we shall have on the central board some direct representation of that minority point of view.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The minority cases differ.

Major DAVIES: Quite so, and it is all the more important, therefore, that they should have some proportional representation. Everyone knows how such organisations would work if you had a central board practically all of whom represented the amalgamation or other proposals which are being put forward, but against which there was a minority. They may listen to the representations made and let it go at that, but if we had a provision in the Bill that there should be on the central board someone who is a direct channel of the mental attitude, of interpretation of the views, of those who generally object to a decision of the majority, we should be putting into the Bill a reasonable guarantee. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can-
not give us something more definite in the way of a guarantee of a representation upon the central board of what we may call the minority view.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The President of the Board of Trade gave an assurance, but it was of a somewhat cryptic character. I took down his words as he uttered them, and he said: "Without in any way committing myself at the moment, I think you may take it as certain that all points of view would be represented." If he does not commit himself at the moment, are we to take it as certain? If we are to take it as certain that they will all be represented, has he not committed himself to the Committee? It appears to me that there are quite specific provisions in the Bill as it stands which require that all points of view should be represented and that the Board of Trade should see that that is done, for the Bill in this Clause specifically states:
The central scheme shall constitute the central council which shall … be composed of representatives of all the owners of coal mines in the several districts.
Obviously, therefore, if they are to be all the owners, they cannot be representative merely of particular sections of the coal-owners in different districts. Further, in the provisions of the previous Clause, it says that the Board of Trade is only to approve any scheme if it is satisfied that the scheme complies with the requirements of the Act. Putting those two provisions together, cannot the President of the Board of Trade give the assurance asked for?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I hope the right hon. Gentleman, on reconsideration, will see that it is very imperative to put in some definite words safeguarding the rights of these minorities. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that there is a number of coalowners to-day in areas where the voluntary schemes have operated who are definitely nervous of some form of reprisals when they are brought into the compulsory scheme. Their apprehensions may be right or wrong, but in any event I think the right hon. Gentleman might be well advised to secure some form of representation for these minorities in order that they may have a voice in the disposition of this scheme when it is in operation. In every coalfield there are minority and majority
interests. There is, for instance, the interest of those who are in the export coal trade, and it is obviously not the same as that of those in the inland coal trade, and it may be that the latter coal-owners are in a great minority, who should have their voice heard on the council, as well as that of the export traders. The President of the Board of Trade was most persuasive in the way he put his opposition to the Amendment, but I would ask him to consider putting in something absolutely definite, so that all the coalowners may know in black and white that minorities will be protected and will have representation on the respective councils.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: We are in some difficulty on this question, because both sides of the Committee really want the same thing, but it does not seem that we have any form of words which will bring about what we all desire. The whole essence of this Amendment is as to what "all" means in the phrase "representatives of all the owners." The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said that this should include minorities, but by the way in which this central council is to be elected, it may be more than likely that no minority at all will be represented. What I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman was whether or not it would be possible to put in some form of words like the following:
including at least one representative of owners dissenting from the scheme.
That would lay it down quite clearly that there must be at least one representative, or the Government might agree to make it two representatives or more. That would get over the difficulty, and it would also get over the difficulty of some form of proportional representation. I do not think that is possible as actually worded in the Amendment, but I do think it would be possible to make absolutely certain, not only by an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, but by a form of words actually in the Bill, that the owners dissenting should be represented on the central council.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I appreciate the point which is put by hon. and right hon. Members, and for myself, of course, I am most anxious to find a solution, but there are difficulties in this case. I
think perhaps we could almost leave out of the way the position of the central or national scheme, because it is plain from speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite that there would be no suggestion of proportional representation on the central council. That would lead to far too large a body and, in fact, could not be operated at all. But there is one point that I would like to emphasise, assuming that this Part of the Bill becomes law. Both as regards the national scheme and the district schemes, all the owners are covered. In the national scheme you have included all the pits in the country, and in the district schemes you have included all the pits in the districts, so that to that extent the arguments about the majority and the minority are weakened. A minority may be large or small, but it takes its place in what is now one scheme under this Bill in a district covering every pit in the district.

The question before us, therefore, is not one of majority and minority in the strict sense, but rather the representation of a point of view which up to its inclusion presumably was hostile to the scheme and may wish to address considerations afterwards while the scheme is in operation. It is very difficult indeed to bring into this Bill a precise percentage or anything like that, and for myself I am rather relying on what is the plain duty, and indeed the obligation, of the Board of Trade in this connection. We have to approve the national scheme and the district schemes. Assuming that you have any substantial minority, or in fact any minority at all, in this case I say quite frankly that it would be impossible for the Board of Trade to approve of a scheme which did not, in our judgment, in its constitution as regards personnel, represent the different points of view, and that will undoubtedly be the practice of the Board in approving these schemes.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is a difference between the way in which the right hon. Gentleman would exercise a discretion and an obligation upon him under the Bill. If he would tell us that the words as drafted in the Bill impose upon him a statutory obligation to see that minorities were represented, I think our case would be met, but if he merely says that he himself, in the per-
sonal exercise of his discretion, would do it, I do not think that is enough; and I think he ought himself to put down an Amendment, or to give us an assurance that, if he is not bound by the Statute to exercise the discretion to give a representation to minorities—if that is not a statutory obligation—he will consult the Attorney-General and see that the proper words are put in.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I must not mislead the Committee. I do not consider that the words of the Bill put me under a statutory obligation to do that, but I have described what would be done at the Board under these schemes.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman said that he regarded it as a duty and an obligation of the Board of Trade to do this very thing.

Mr. GRAHAM: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has read into that word "obligation" a statutory obligation, and I should confine myself to the term "duty." I say that it would be the duty of any President of the Board of Trade to see that the district schemes were representative of every point of view. A district scheme must be representative of all the pits in the district. Suppose the minority is strong, that minority can command, by the election proposed in this Bill, a certain number of representatives on a district scheme. There is no doubt about that. By ordinary election I think it would be capable of achieving that result. I have made it clear, as regards Part I, that we must have the owners with us, but I am willing to say this, that as regards district schemes, I will try, between now and the Report stage, in consultation with the Department, to see whether a method can be found of making certain that there will be representation of every point of view. Beyond that, I should not like to go this afternoon, but it will be with a desire to find a solution that I shall approach the problem.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am prepared to accept that assurance, on the understanding that we shall, in any case, have an opportunity of settling the matter on the Report stage. Supposing that the right hon. Gentleman finds that the coal-owners do not agree with him and he decides that he is unwilling to put in
words, we should then move this Amendment on Report. Unless the President of the Board of Trade himself puts down an Amendment, we cannot be quite sure of getting that opportunity. If he gives us an undertaking that we shall have an opportunity of raising this matter on Report, I think we shall be prepared to accept his suggestion now.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: A few words ought to be said about the very remarkable statement that has been made by the President of the Board of Trade. Here we have a perfectly reasonable Amendment to carry out what he says he has in mind, yet the right hon. Gentleman frankly tells us that he is so committed to the owners that he cannot do that. I feel very strongly about this matter and I feel it to be my duty to make this protest. If I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, I am very sorry, but the whole intention of his last statement was to impress the Committee with the fact that he has an understanding with the owners in regard to Part I and that without consulting them he is not able to meet, even in a form of words, a reasonable request like the one that has been made to-day.

Mr. J. JONES: I am sorry to have to intervene in this Debate, but I am as much a coalowner as the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee. I appreciate very much the Simon Pure attitude adopted by hon. Members opposite. They are now asking that representation should be given in this Coal Mines Bill to all sectional interests in connection with the trade. When we were discussing the last Coal Mines Bill they would not touch representation of the miners with a 40-foot pole. The same people come here now with tears in their voices and talk about the right of every section interested to have a voice. I hope that they will have a voice, and that is about all. I represent not a coal mining district but a district where we buy coal in the winter months at prices which are almost impossible. If I thought that the collier was going to get the benefit of the price that we pay for coal in the East End of London, I should be prepared to support—

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee is
whether a minority of dissentient coal-owners should be represented or not, we are now discussing the price of coal.

Mr. JONES: I have no objection to those owners being represented, so long as they are not over-represented. Minorities on our side have never been represented. Even to-day, at question time, five hon. Members opposite could put 10 Supplementary Questions, but we were told that we must not ask a second Supplementary Question. It seems to me to be sanctimonious humbug on the part of those hon. Members who have been talking about representation. They never fight for representation for the working classes, but they are always prepared to fight for representation for people who have property interests at stake. I hope that the Government will not give way, and that the Minister will use some little power—his predecessor used his power to keep the workers on the mat—to keep the coalowners on the mat, and give them some idea of our experience in days gone by.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: There is one point which arises out of what the President of the Board of Trade has said, to which attention ought to be directed. I gathered from him that he felt that while he was preparing the scheme he was more or less tied to the owners in regard to Part I. I should like to make it perfectly clear that so far as Northumberland and Durham are concerned the owners do not want this part at any price. They would rather have the Bill without Part I than they would be tied to Part I, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I should like to repeat that statement, in order to make myself quite clear, that the owners in Northumberland and Durham do not want Part I. They would rather have the Bill without it.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I should like to assure hon. Members that there is no question of giving way in a matter of this kind. The object is rather to try to find an appropriate solution. Hon. Members who have spoken from the other side are in error in suggesting that we are tied to a plan which has been approved and which cannot be altered in any detail. I have always made it quite clear to the Committee that this part of the Bill re-
presents, substantially, an agreement, as in a case of this kind there must be agreement, but it is before the House of Commons, quite openly, for approval. I am, however, bound to point out the difficulty of making an alteration, unless there is a very strong case for that course. There is a distinction between the central and the district schemes. When I spoke a few minutes ago I was referring to the district schemes. It may be that the words on page 3, in Clause 2 (1), amount, as regards the national scheme, to a definite obligation to see that all owners are represented. If that is the state of affairs, which I imagine to be correct so far as the central scheme is concerned, then there would be less difficulty in meeting the points which the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and my right hon. Friend opposite have proposed. We might leave it at that point this afternoon. I will do my best in regard to the district schemes to find a solution, if possible, between now and the Report stage. As regards the future opportunity for discussing the matter, it does not lie with me to decide whether the question can be raised again, but so far as the Government are concerned we shall join in any request to Mr. Speaker for facilities.

Captain BOURNE: In view of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, I do not desire to press the Amendment. I am sorry that he could not accept it and give us a definite assurance so far as the district schemes are concerned, but I hope to have an opportunity of raising that question at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
but so that no allocation of maximum output, nor any restriction in this Act contained in respect thereof, shall operate or take effect so as to hamper or restrict the production and sale of coal or coke destined for export overseas, but all such coal and coke shall be freed from all restrictions of output and shall not be subject to any control as part of or contained in the district allocation.
This part of the Clause gives power to the Central Committee to allocate in each district the maximum output of coal for that district, and the process applies
both to coal consumed inland and to export coal, but the case in regard to export coal is not the same as that in regard to coal consumed inland. As I understand it, the case in regard to coal consumed at home is this, that for some time past there has been a cut-throat competition between the collieries, with the result that they have been selling coal at less than the cost of production. The Committee has now decided that the production of that coal shall be limited by quota to a production to meet the demand of the country. The case with regard to export coal must be different, because in regard to inland coal there can be no competition from abroad while in regard to export coal that coal all the time is competing with coal from foreign countries in foreign ports, and also in coaling ports along the trade routes. I should have thought that the right thing to do in regard to export coal would be to increase the output and to increase the export.
The other day, when I was moving an Amendment in regard to the quota, I gave certain figures which tended to show that the world demand for coal was on the increase, but that the amount produced in this country had not increased in the same ratio. Of course, it has not. The figures were as follow: in 1900, 766,000,000 tons of coal were used in the world and in 1929 1,429,000,000 tons were used, or practically double the amount, whereas the amount of coal produced in this country was 225,000,000 tons in 1900, and 237,000,000 tons in 1928. There has been a great increase, but the increase in the production in this country between 1900 and 1928, namely, 12,000,000 tons, is accounted for by the increase in exports from this country. Of the figures for 1900 with respect to this country we exported 58,000,000 tons and in 1928 we exported 70,000,000 tons, the difference being exactly the same, namely, 12,000,000 tons, so that we have since 1900 slightly increased our production and we have a small increase in our exports. My suggestion to the Committee is that we should go on increasing the production for export; if we do not, what will be the result? The result will be diminished trade from this country.
I am aware of the criticisms which have been made since I gave the figures in
regard to world output last week, that the market for this country is limited, that it is a market largely confined to Europe and the trade routes; but when we come to examine that market the extraordinary thing is that during the last few years the amount of coal that we have exported even to the European markets and especially to France, Spain and Italy has increased. I will not worry the Committee with figures, but it might interest the Committee to know that our exports to Europe and South America—that means largely exports to the River Plate, where ships take our cargoes of coal and bring home corn—was only 18,300,000 tons in 1928, and it has gone up to 21,340,000 tons, a very substantial increase and a very substantial percentage over 1928.
Supposing we cut down, as we must cut down by the use of the quota, the amount which is available for export, the first thing that will happen will be that the price will be increased to the consumer abroad, and that price will have to compete against the coal which is available for that consumer from other countries. We shall be competing upon the worst basis because, in the first place, of the increased price and in the second place because we shall be losing our market. Let us assume, for example, that a coaling port requires 1,000,000 tons of coal a year. That is a big amount, but not beyond the requirements of some of our big coaling ports. Let us suppose that hitherto we have had a substantial monopoly in that coaling port and that we have exported to that port 800,000 tons of coal in a year. The requirements of that port will remain the same, indeed, the requirements of the ports have been on the increase.
Under the quota, we shall not be able to send out 800,000 tons to that port; we shall only be able to send out, say, 700,000 tons. Where is the other 100,000 tons to come from? Of course, it will come from a foreign competitor, and you are putting your ships into touch with foreign suppliers and permanently losing a market. We have suffered from that in the past. In the second place, the foreign consumer will realise that he is now dealing, not with individuals in this country, but with a trust and a big trust, with a ring of coalowners. Every consumer dislikes rings, and if he can possibly buy
his coal, even at a greater expense to himself, outside the ring, he will prefer to do so in the fond hope that in time he will break the ring. That is what will happen, I am afraid, if this provision is not added to the Bill. Further, we have the effect not merely upon the coal industry itself, but the effect on the shipping industry. There is also bound to be an effect on docks and on freights.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the hon. and learned Member arguing that the quota will not vary from month to month?

Mr. DAVIES: It cannot vary from month to month. It is bound to be fixed for a stabilised period, and during that period ruin might come to a particular colliery or a particular exporter. That is why one is so anxious that the export trade should not be interfered with. Another thing will be the effect on freights on homeward-bound goods. Every shipowner does his best to arrange that a ship that takes coal outward brings home goods to this country. If a ship cannot take out the full quantity of coal she has to make a profit by an extra freight on the homeward-bound goods, and obviously those goods will be dearer when they reach the consumer in this country. Lastly, and a reason which ought to appeal to hon. Members on the Government side more particularly, is that once you have lost a market and have restricted output in such a way that it not merely affects the distribution of coal in this country, but destroys a permanent market for you abroad, the result is bound to be greater unemployment. The Bill is bound to increase the difficulties under which a colliery proprietor is working his coal, is bound to lead to decreased production, and as a result to greater unemployment.
It is rather sad that we from this side of the House should be defending a policy which was advocated only yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal. He told us that the one permanent cure for unemployment was increased export trade. If this Bill goes through without the addition of the words of the Amendment, it will inevitably lead to a restriction of exports and to the very thing which the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday was undesirable. The right hon. Gentleman has advocated the export of coal from this country to Canada
in order that we may get corn and other goods from Canada. But as the Bill stands, the amount of coal exported would be cut down. It may be asked, how can the proposal of my Amendment be worked? I am assured by exporters that it can he worked. I will give one or two illustrations as to the position in South Wales. The bulk of the coal produced in South Wales is exported. The figures are 60 per cent. exported and 40 per cent. only used for home consumption. In some of the pits, those which raise steam coal, the proportions are 90 per cent. exported and only 10 per cent. used for home consumption. I am assured that the proposal of the Amendment can be carried out, that the standard of the coal which has been used in the past for home consumption can be used as the standard upon which the quota of these mines in that district can be fixed, and that the rest could be allowed to go out freely, and that trade should be allowed to expand in its own proper and natural way.

Mr. PRICE: I have listened with very much interest, as I am sure the whole Committee has done, to the speech of the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment; but I feel that, interesting as his statistics were, they told only half the story. The hon. and learned Member said that the world demand for coal is on the increase, and he gave us figures to show that there has been a considerable increase in the export of coal from this country, and in the general world production. But if he had seen that very interesting publication, the Interim Report on Coal of the Economic Committee of the League of Nations, he would have noticed that while the world production of coal has increased, apparently the consuming capacity of the world has not increased in proportion. It looks as if the consumption of raw material in the world has increased, between 1913 and 1928, from 100 to 125, but the total world consumption has increased only from 100 to 102.4, or, including lignite, soft coal, to 104. In other words, it would appear that there has been very considerable economy in the use of coal, in spite of the fact that production has been increasing all the time.
We all know very well that there has been a great change going on in the use of electricity and oil, and in steam engine
practice by the use of superheated steam in modern boilers. All these things have tended to economies in the use of coal, and have brought about a difficulty generally on the world market. That does not seem to show that there is any reason for the suggestion that we should go on increasing our output of coal for export. On the contrary, it seems to me to be a very strong argument for bringing about what is the opinion throughout the Continent amongst all those leaders of industry who are connected with the coal industry, namely, that there should be something in the nature of an international agreement to regulate the output of coal throughout Europe, and as far as possible throughout the world. Important as that is, up till now there has been very little progress made, except in a few particulars.
The whole development since the War has been one of continued undercutting and cut-throat competition in the export markets. This Bill is going to do something, we hope, to limit that. But what is the use of having a regulation of output at home unless we have a similar Measure abroad? After all, the worst feature of the coal situation is that cutthroat competition is going on abroad. I resided in Germany for four years after the War, and I had many occasions to see the effects of the cut-throat competition going on between this country and Germany. First of all it was complicated very much by the Spa Agreement and the reparations coal exacted from Germany under that Agreement, whereby coal had to be delivered to France and Belgium at a price below the world market price of the time. Under the Spa Agreement, British coal was undercut on those markets, and that helped very largely to bring about the disastrous coal dispute in 1921. As a result of that and of the burdens which were placed upon the coalminers, British coal was able once more to under-cut the German coal. Then we had the reversed situation created by the French occupation of the Ruhr. This sort of see-saw competition has led to the disasters of to-day.
Under the coal law in Germany in 1919 an organisation was created which brought the industry into syndicates, limited the output of the various coalfields to a certain figure, and took certain
measures, somewhat tentatively, to control prices. But while prices have been fixed for the home market, quite generally in recent years the export price for German coal has always been below the home price. A cause of that is undoubtedly the competition between this country and Germany in the coal markets of the world. Recently a new competitor has come in, Poland. Now we have this country, Germany and Poland engaged in this disastrous competition. But even in Poland there are steps being taken towards the organising of the industry into some form of syndicate which will have the effect of regulating output and controlling prices. One of the difficulties with which we are faced is the fact that there is no such organisation in this country. It is true that there is a voluntary organisation being created under the Five Counties scheme, but it is only voluntary, and what we want is a scheme whereby the whole industry in this country will be brought in, so that it can speak with an authoritative voice to the producers of coal in Germany and Poland. Then there will be a chance of putting an end to the international anarchy. For these reasons I hope that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will not accept the Amendment. I hope that our Ulysses on the Front Bench will not listen to the singing of the sirens on the Liberal Benches who are trying to lead his ship on the rocks.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: We have all listened with interest to my hon. Friend's admirable statement of the case against the Amendment. The Amendment is bound up with another, which I should not be in order in anticipating, designed to remove from the Bill the power to levy the whole of the production of coal in this country for the purpose of facilitating the sale of certain classes of coal, among them coal for export. Having mentioned that fact, I fall back at once on the precise proposition of the Amendment. The Amendment seeks to leave outside the regulation of the output of coal in this country all coal which is designed for the export trade. It is perfectly clear that it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, partly because of the structure of the Bill, and partly because of discussions which we have already had on other Amendments which were devoted to the pur-
pose of excluding certain classes of coal. Last week it was sought to leave out coal which was to be used by iron and steel undertakings, and there are other Amendments on the Order Paper which seek to exclude this and other classes of coal. Therefore, the only reply of the Government, who are committed to the principles of Part I and the quota which has now been approved by the House, must be to the effect that the quota must be comprehensive and in itself the essential part, and that any concession or special arrangements that are to be made later for any class of demand must be made within the ambit of that regulation. Let us consider what would happen if the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) were adopted. Let us consider what would happen in a large export district like South Wales where between 50 and 60 per cent. of the tonnage raised is exported? Let us also consider what would happen in the case of Northumberland and Durham where a very large proportion of the tonnage raised is also exported. At one stroke under this Amendment all that coal would pass beyond the reach of this legislation and would not be covered at all, and you would create serious anomalies as between those districts which were only partially regulated in relation to their whole output, and the other districts where the conditions were by no means similar. The only possible basis is to keep the regulation in a comprehensive form, and then to ask ourselves what steps of a special character can be taken within the regulations if those steps are required.
The hon. Member opposite was correct in saying that there has been a certain improvement in the export trade, and he said that we sold so many more million tons last year as compared with 1928. May I point out that the hon. Member does not quite get rid of the broad truth that the European demand for coal, which is of course the essence of this export problem for Great Britain, taking a line through the years has almost been stationary. It has been subject to certain variations and improvements, but it now appears, in substance, to have settled down for the reason which I tried to describe during the Second Reading of this Bill. It is true that there has been a certain amount of improvement, but we,
as an exporting country, have to take into account that state of affairs, and that leads us back to the argument as to the importance of placing our export coal on the market, which is the very essence of this Bill, at an economic level, and at something more than the cost of production, and at a price that will give a fair return to the export trade.
Suppose that this Amendment were carried, and the export trade in coal were taken entirely outside of the quota regulations, the only effect would be that, subject to the considerations about aggregate demand, you would increase the quantity of coal produced nominally for export, and you would put it on the European market under conditions which could only have the effect of depressing trade and aggravating the cut-throat competition. That is the danger which we have to face. There is no question of a restriction of output in relation to the economic demand. I want, if I can, to convince people that the object is not to give coal away or subsidise the demand, but to avoid the sale of coal at a loss, and, if you go outside this arrangement, you must run a grave danger of having to sell at a loss, or contributing to that danger, on the European market. If you tie our hands in this way you must weaken us as regards our international trade, which is growing. It is overwhelmingly to our advantage in Great Britain to encourage these arrangements in the coal industry, because in that lies in the largest measure our hope of promoting European trade, and that is why I am so anxious about the conditions regarding restriction of output. I think my hon. Friend is wrong in making the suggestion that we are going to restrict output. The moment there is any additional demand, there is provision for responding to it. If, however, the demand is below the cost of production or at an uneconomic level, while it is easy to supply that class of demand to-day, the only effect is to weaken the whole position of the industry in regard to the export and home demand.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire will observe the precautions and safeguards which are enjoyed under this Bill. It is perfectly clear in later proposals that it is within the power of the district and national machinery to adjust the basic tonnage, with a uniform quota applied to it.
because, of course, the quota is uniform all over the district, although it may be varied to meet any class of demand. That class of demand may be iron and steel as we shall see later, or, as we are now considering the export trade. If in the judgment of the industry subject to the machinery for the protection of consumers there is a class of demand at an economic level which justifies a larger output, then by adjusting the standard tonnage and giving to that standard tonnage 100 per cent. quota, as can be done for any class of coal, we meet the points which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire has in mind, and we get rid of any difficulty of restriction such as he fears. Quite plainly that is the way in which to deal with this problem. It would be altogether wrong to deal with it by taking that class of coal entirely outside regulations and exposing ourselves to the dangers of European and world prices to which I have just referred. We should then regulate the method of control, but at the appropriate moment and in circumstances which would give the export market an economic return adjust the supply in terms of tonnage and quota. That is the way to handle this problem. For these reasons, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire will see, I could not possibly accept his Amendment, and I trust that the Committee after due consideration will reject it.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has just declared that this proposal excites his enthusiasm, and he is always most dangerous when he is enthusiastic, for then I feel that he is impervious to argument. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is visualising the coal trade of the world as though it were one complete organism which he could guide and train, modify and twist and shape according to his statesmanlike ideas. If the right hon. Gentleman were to be the supreme dictator as to what was happening in the coal trade, if he could preside at Geneva over those who control the whole of the coalfields, say, of Europe not to mention America, and if he could dictate what should happen in every part of the world, I have no doubt that the world would be all the better for it. We should lose his services, but the world would be the
gainer. The unfortunate thing, however, is that he is not in that position, and when the right hon. Gentleman puts to the Committee the argument that unless he gets a quota and a limitation on the export coal trade, he cannot carry out international obligations, I think he is overlooking one very important fact, namely, that he will never succeed in getting other people to limit the amount of coal they are trying to export by trying to drive a bargain with them when he has already in his own Bill provided for a limitation of exports. If there is to be a bargain, it must be a free bargain on both sides.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Price) has had a good deal of experience of German economic affairs, and he will know that in the German markets, and in many parts of the world where German coal is exported, there is what he calls cut-throat competition. There it is, and if my right hon. Friend has to go to Geneva to arrange a quota for these different countries—that is all that his argument amounts to—as well as for us, it means that this cut-throat competition, as far as we are concerned, is to be brought to an end, and if the other countries are to be free to go to the coaling stations, to manufacturers, railways and gasworks without any limitation upon them, he cannot drive a good bargain under those conditions.
The discussion, as far as it has gone, I think, has been on purely theoretical lines, except that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire has given a great many particulars which are present in the minds of those controlling the export trade of this country, and for very good reasons, namely, that they have to deal with these things every day in the week. I notice that both the hon. Member for Whitehaven and the President of the Board of Trade speak of these matters as being capable of arrangement, but let me put this case. A colliery or exporting firm acting for a colliery succeeds in getting fairly large contracts from railway companies and gasworks. They do that probably on a 12 months' basis, and they try to cover as much of their potential output as they can by these long contracts. But that is not the whole story, for at the coal exchanges of Newcastle. Cardiff and Glasgow, there are chance orders and in this way they get in to
new business and if we cannot take these orders we lose the sale of that extra coal.
The classic example is what happened during the heavy frost of last year. Danzig was frozen up and Polish coal could not be got through. Suddenly, without anybody anticipating that it was possible, there were purchasers from Oslo, Stockholm, Helsingfors and so on, all of whom wanted coal. The demand came quite suddenly from the European market. Newcastle was suddenly aware of it, and Glasgow and Cardiff immediately began to make bids to those gasworks and railways that required coal, and we succeeded in getting extra orders which redounded to the advantage, not only of the exporters and the coalowners, but of the miners themselves.

Mr. FRANK LEE: A good part of that was due to the frost.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is that fluctuating amount of trade for which I am pleading. If we are going to give up the chance of getting these orders, the chance for our merchants to be first in the market, we are going to sacrifice a very important part of our foreign coal trade. And it is not only a question of helping the coal trade. There is scarcely a heavy trade in the country which does not benefit from it. We have had a standing example of that, again in the Baltic. We captured a certain amount of that trade, and vessels had to be chartered to take the coal out. Once they were out in the Baltic, they were prepared to bring ore back at lower freights than they could have accepted if they had gone out in ballast and had only brought the ore to this country. The iron trade benefited from that. Similarly, they were able to go out carrying coal to the Baltic and to bring home timber at a lower rate per standard than it would have been possible to charge if they had had to go out in ballast. Unfortunately, no grain was then coming from Russia, but, if there had been, the same thing would have happened—the grain would have come back at a lower gross price because the freights homeward could have been cut down. In the public interest it is of the very first importance for the basic trades and for the consuming public of this country that there should be the utmost freedom of export, because that is the only way in which you can keep that outward
cargo business going which redounds to the benefit of the whole country on the return voyage.
It is very often said in these Debates that the coal trade is stagnant, but I venture to disagree with that suggestion. A great deal that happens in the coal trade is on the margin. It may be that there is a demand for coal that may pass away. It may be that, owing to the demand for oil at some of the coaling stations, the demand for coal has almost entirely disappeard in the course of a single season, or because, in the economy of arranging the voyages, it is better to take in enough coal at this end and go right out without calling at coaling stations at all. Sometimes, on the other hand, it is necessary to take in coal at the coaling stations, owing to fluctuations in the freight market one way or the other. These are things which cannot be foreseen, but they do arise, and they have to be provided for at the time, as they cannot be covered by a 12 months' contract. There are dozens, and, indeed, hundreds of cases in various places in the world where you can undoubtedly make a 12 months' contract and be perfectly satisfied, but when you come to coaling stations and other places which are affected, some by the weather and some by fluctuations in the freight markets, they may come at any moment into the market and ask unexpectedly for 100,000 tons or 50,000 tons. Then you have to charter 10 or a dozen vessels and get them out at once. It was that constant readiness of our merchants to jump into the market and take the trade when it arises which gave us a great deal of the increase in our export coal trade which occurred during the year 1929.
These proposals would put an end to that, and it would be a very serious matter if it were even checked. I know that my right hon. Friend thinks that all that he is going to do is to get rid, as the hon. Member for Whitehaven said, of cutthroat competition. If there were international agreements which were effective, it might be possible to work on a quota system in all countries all at once, but we are to have a quota system in this country, existing perhaps for a year, but it may be many years before anything of the kind is reached abroad, and in the meantime we should lose these markets;
and the miners, who could not be kept fully employed, would be the first sufferers, because their suffering is direct and immediate, whereas the suffering of the coalowners may be kept off by the buffer of their reserves or of their overdrafts. The House ought not to regard that position lightly.
It seems to me that, the more one looks into the question of the export trade, the more essential it is that it should be given the utmost elasticity, that no checks should be placed upon it in the interests of all concerned, but that it should have complete freedom to meet the demand as and when it arises. Do not let it be imagined for one moment that those who control the coalfields of foreign countries are going to be so merciful to us. They want to get business, and so do we, and it is our duty to capture it for the sake of the national trade and of the miners employed in it. Anything that we do to take away our freedom in the foreign export trade to capture those contracts, will be throwing away much of our present organisation for the sale of coal.
Do not let the House run away with the idea that our present organisation is not effective. We have some of the best commercial travellers in the world representing us abroad. They are alert, and they can see more of the progress of trade and of what may be required than almost anyone else. They are very much alive to the fact that oil is competing with us all over the world. One of the things which is always present in their minds is that there is a very considerable amount of shipping which now has steam machinery that can burn coal or oil alternatively, and, if you are prepared to throw the balance against the one and in favour of the other, you may actually damage the main demand which keeps our collieries going and which keeps our merchants and miners employed. These men are alert in looking out for this business, and they will be handicapped if they are put under a quota. If they are tied to a quota they might as well come home and kick their heels here for 11 months in the year, but what we want is to see them at work for 11 months of the year looking out for this demand wherever they can get it, and bringing back orders to this country, so that our ships may be employed in carrying the cargoes, our miners may be employed in
bringing the coal to the surface, and our merchants may be employed in selling it wherever trade arises. Under those conditions we shall see the coal trade put on a sound basis again, as it was to some extent last year, by a great increase in the demand.

Major LLEWELLIN: I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by my horn and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies). If one reads the Amendment, one can hardly think of anyone who would not support it, because it seeks to prevent anything that will
hamper or restrict the production and sale of coal or coke destined for export overseas.
In listening to the President of the Board of Trade, one understands that his idea of dealing with the matter is to get the whole of the coalowners of this country speaking as one body, but they will not be speaking as one body in favour of the quota system, which will Affect them in all their dealings with export trade. I quite appreciate that, if there were an international agreement among all coal-producing countries, preferably after they had introduced such a Measure as this, it might be possible, but it seems to me that this is another of those gestures of which the Government are rather fond. We have seen it in the ease of the Naval Conference, in the reduction of our ships before there was any agreement with anybody else. We find it also, though I do not wish to touch upon a thorny subject, in the giving to Russia of recognition before we had any binding agreement on their part. Exactly the same thing is being done in the coal trade by this hampering of the needs of our productive industry in this country, and there is going to be just the same cut-throat competition from abroad.
The consumption of coal in recent years has gone up to only a small extent in proportion to the production, and the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Price) show that we shall get an even smaller share of that consumption under this Measure, because production in this country will be restricted and hampered. Of course, if it were possible to get an international agreement first, and then to bring in this Bill and cut down cut-throat competition,
there would be a great deal to be said for it, but this Bill is being introduced before any other country has offered to introduce a similar Measure, and that seems to me to be folly from the point of view of our coal trade in this country. I understood that the main idea of Part I of this Bill was to allow our coalowners here to make arrangements which would enable them to cover the increased charges due to Part II. We have a restricted market for coal in this country, and there might he something to be said for some restriction of competition in the home field by means of a quota, but to restrict it in the case of trade abroad is like one district in this country restricting its output while another is not under this Bill at all. I understood that that was why the President of the Board of Trade refused a request to exclude Scotland from the Bill, because, in that case, Scotland would have been able to undercut the quota system in England. I am rather surprised that, if the right hon. Gentleman would not exclude Scotland from that advantage, he should bring in this proposal, which will undoubtedly put the whole of Great Britain at a disadvantage as compared with other countries which have no such restrictions. The hon. Member for Whitehaven asked what was the use of a regulating Bill here if there was no such Bill in any other country, and I agree with him completely—

Mr. PRICE: I said that in Germany, and other countries on the continent, they have such organisations, and they are waiting for us to set up an organisation here. Then there can be an international agreement, but unless we take that step there can be none.

Major LLEWELLIN: It seems to me that what we are doing is taking a definite and binding statutory step which will require another Act of Parliament to alter it. It may be that in Germany they are doing something of the kind, but there is no other country that is prepared to meet us simultaneously with the passing of our own Measure. If we bring in this Measure and lose a large part of our export coal trade, we shall have great difficulty in getting it back when other countries adopt similar Measures.
As regards the question of making up the extra costs which obviously are
going to be incurred in connection with Part II of the Bill, we can see that, if we can keep on expanding our export trade, we can reduce the overhead charges, produce more coal, and get better credit balances abroad, and we thus enable the industry to pay the extra charges due to the shortening of the working day by half an hour. I am very much surprised that this Amendment is not going to be considered by the Government at all, because it seems to me to be vital, in these days of unemployment, that we should do all that we can to keep our export trade. The President of the Board of Trade says that outside this regulation the production of the mines will be increased, which will mean giving more employment in this country; but when we find that here there is a provision which, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, will limit that production and will limit the employment that is possible in this country, it does seem to be a very strange step to be taken by a Government which says that it is trying to deal with the unemployment problem. With a larger export trade the overhead charges will be less, and the industry will he better able to compete and yet to pay, probably, the same wages as it would be able to pay if output were restricted and the overhead charges increased for every ton of coal sold. It seems to me that this is a gratuitous interference with the export trade of this country, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it and will meet this Amendment in some way.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I apologise for not having heard the whole of my right hon. Friend's speech, but I rather think I know what his arguments were, just as he knows that I was with a certain deputation and that I could not be here. We have accepted the principle of the quota, on this side of the Committee anyhow, and however much sympathy we may have with the Amendment—and I have a great deal of sympathy—we cannot avoid supporting my right hon. Friend in resisting it. The reason I should have liked to see it accepted is because of the experience we have had in my own constituency. We are one of the greatest coal exporting ports in the world, and we have, unfortunately, had a dose of this artificial restriction before. It was unofficial. It
was ad hoc. We had not the same locus standi with the Government then as I hope we shall have in the future. Under the form of a Five County Marketing Scheme, we were put to great loss and inconvenience, men being thrown out of work and business lost in export coal because of the constant putting down of quotas and never knowing from month to month what this body of mineowners would decide to be the quota allowed. They did this without consulting the coal exporting or the shipping interests, and the then Minister of Mines will admit that we were put to tremendous inconvenience and loss by this partial quota scheme. The position is that we have adopted this quota, and we are going again to have a reduction of exported coal. It is a choice of evils, and we have to think of the industry as a whole and, of course, we shall then be able to go into the market with our international rivals and have a great international quota. All that is agreed, but we anticipate with apprehension in the North that we may again lose business through being unable to get the required kinds of coal for mixing or to pick up export cargoes.
There is a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) has said. The remedy is that the Board of Trade must recognise that there is sure to be, with the best organisation and the best safeguards, inconvenience in the shipping ports. The President of the Board of Trade, even by virtue of the office he holds, is the last person who would wish to see the shipping interest injured, and still less the men who earn their living by loading coal in the ships. It will be necessary, therefore, for the Board of Trade to watch carefully the working of the quota from the beginning. The Bill says it will be decided by the central council, composed of representatives of all the mineowners in the several districts. Those are the very people who tried to put this scheme into operation before, with the most damaging results, and we do not trust either their competence or their national outlook. We think they are only too anxious to get a profit for non-efficient pits that ought to be closed down or to get their money easily.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: In view of the fact that these same coalowners
will operate the district schemes, what assurance can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give that we shall have any better state of affairs than existed in the past?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This is, after all, a Government scheme, and the Government will have a certain power of interference that under the former scheme, which was introduced with the blessing of the then Government, they did not have. When we lost trade in Hull because we could not get our coal to sell to our customers, and the shipowners went for their coal elsewhere, we had no means of bringing pressure to bear on the Committee. All we could do was to go and see the Minister of Mines. He gave us great sympathy and wrote to the organisation, but they snapped their fingers at him if it suited them. They cannot do that under the present scheme. There are safeguards, but my right hon. Friend and his officials will have to watch the scheme, especially at the beginning, very carefully, and he will have to be prepared to bring pressure to bear if the coal export trade is being affected. That is only right and fair. If my right hon. Friend can give that assurance, it will remove many apprehensions that are felt by people in the North, who recognise the difficulties and look to him as their champion and defender. As long as he is there, they have a worthy and stout defender and champion, but they do not know him as well as I do. A word from him now as to the knowledge the Board of Trade have of these apprehensions and the solid reasons for them would be extremely helpful to the men who are, in face of great difficulties, doing their best to keep the trade of the country going.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: In the state of my voice, I did not wish to take part in the Debate, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech causes me to make an effort. For base ingratitude I have never heard anything like it. If he only looks at the exports from Hull during the time the scheme has been in force and compares them with the exports for the previous year, he will see that, in spite of quota and in spite of Regulations, about 200 per cent. more coal was handled by his constituents than before the scheme came into operation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Baronet aware that since the
five county scheme was dropped the exports have gone up still further?

Sir S. ROBERTS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entirely wrong. He has been in India and does not know that the five county scheme is still working, and coal is still passing through the hands of his constituents. He has been got at by the speculative merchants in Hull, who never liked the scheme because the commission was regulated at 3 per cent. on the cost, so that they could not speculate and do what they liked. They are the gentlemen who are using the hon. and gallant Gentleman as the monkey to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives, during the month of the big frost last year as much coal as could be pulled out of the Midland areas, that use the port of Hull, was pulled out and exported and sold as if there had been no quota at all. It is not this drastic scheme that has been sketched to the Committee. It is an elastic and workable scheme which has proved to be practicable.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I should like to try to remove a misconception into which the Committee has fallen. When the President of the Board of Trade referred to the necessity of a quota in order to arrive at agreement with foreign countries, he has been misled, because my experience of conversations with German coalowners and the German trade generally is that what they are after is not curtailment of output of export coal but a definite delineation of the frontiers of territories in which coal can be sold. Therefore, the actual reduction of output will have nothing to do with the carrying out of negotiations as to the territories in which the various types of coal in foreign countries are sold. To my mind, looking at the question purely from the export trade point of view, all the tendency of modern coal mining is to improve the output and reduce the cost. In the coalfields of the North, especially on the East coast of Scotland, if these restrictions are carried through, they will kill the trade stone dead. In the past year we have had a considerable improvement. The men have been fully employed and the coal has been sold at a small profit, but if you are going to limit the amount of
coal that is going to be drawn for exports you immediately counteract the tendency of modern engineering whereby money has been spent in order to reduce the cost of coal. You have another fact to consider in the North, that you have enormous quantities of water to pump—in some mines as much as 3,000 gallons a minute—whereas the coalfields in the South, Yorkshire and elsewhere, are down to a small amount—about 200 gallons. That weight of water, when applied to a restricted output, immediately increases the cost per ton. Therefore, if this type of scheme is adopted, it will undoubtedly hit the mines in the North very much harder than those in the Midlands. Further, we as a nation cannot hope to control the foreign trade. We can try to get our share of it. If we think we are going to Geneva or elsewhere to be able to control all the output of coal in Germany, Poland and France we are under a delusion. At any rate, we are moving in the wrong direction in imposing the quota first. We had far better go to the nations and ask for a delineation of frontiers and, after that, we can deal with the situation as the scheme may be-mand, but to limit your output first by quota and then go into the council chamber to try to make arrangements seems to me the wrong way. In my opinion—and I have some knowledge of the trade—as far as the North is concerned, restriction of output of export coal will hit us hard and will reduce the trade and, I am satisfied, will do definite injury to the pits.

Mr. STRACHEY: I do not think my right hon. Friend will have any difficulty in rebutting the more extravagant charges we have had from the other side of the Committee. As I understand it, there is nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent or to shut off our output of export coal. If we are able to sell at an economic price, covering our cost, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the coal-owners doubling their export, but I am afraid such a happy eventuality is not very likely. There is no element of restriction whatever in the Bill itself. The coalowners will only put restriction on for one reason, that they are unable to sell more than a given amount at a reasonable price. I think it is time we faced up to it that it is not to the advantage of the country indefinitely to export coal
below cost of production. It might be necessary to do so for a short time. It might be necessary to do so in the act of driving a bargain with other countries, but we shall come on to that point in another provision of the Bill. It is not the thing to do on a permanent scale.
There was one criticism by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) which seemed to have a good deal of force. That was the point on the flexibility of the scheme. He pointed out the great rapidity with which chance orders from abroad may arise for our coal owing to some demand created by weather conditions or other conditions abroad. I think that we on this side of the Committee, at any rate, would value an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that the mechanism for fixing these quotas, these special quotas and the special standard tonnage, for the export coal provided for in this Bill, can be operated very rapidly. I believe that under the Five Counties Scheme they can change their quota with the greatest rapidity, and that during the cold spell a year ago the quota was changed several times in one month. There was no danger, therefore, of losing emergency orders owing to their not being able to accept them because it would bring the quantity over the quota. I hope that in these rather more elaborate schemes under this Bill there are not too many safeguards. My feeling is that there is a danger that there will be too many safeguards rather than too few. I hope that we shall not have too many committees to impair the rapidity with which quotas can be altered, especially in the export market.
I have very little doubt that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to reassure us on that point, which does seem to be one of substance. If he does reassure us on that point, I think that there will be nothing else left of any force in the criticisms which have been made. It is for the regulation of our export coal. It does not in any way restrict that export if the persons who are exporting, the coalowners, who should be able to judge of this matter, at any rate, consider that they can sell coal abroad. It would normally help and strengthen their hands in driving a bargain with other foreign coal exporters.
Anybody who has made any study whatever of the export coal market to-day must realise that the making of an international bargain with our great coal competitors is the only hope for the export coal trade of this country.

Mr. E. BROWN: It is obvious that the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Strachey) has been greatly moved by the powerful argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman). I think the Committee will agree that that was a complete reply to the President of the Board of Trade as to the matter of time. It is all very well for the hon. Member to try to escape from the force of the argument of my right hon. Friend by putting up the Five Counties Scheme, May I submit to him that in that scheme you have local arrangements between people on a voluntary basis and they can do what they like at any time. Here we have a fixed and rigid business, in so far as you have the quotas in each district, and then you have the central board. If there is to be a suggestion that in order to react to a sudden demand in some part of the world one district should want an alteration in the export quota, it will raise all kinds of differences, and perhaps jealousies, as between one district and another, and you may possibly have to refer it to the central board before you get a decision. All those concerned with the export of coal, and with the ports, as is the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) are aware that there is already in the ports of the land a great deal of apprehension less we miss our markets. Sometimes it is not a matter of a month, but of 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour as to whether you can get an order in the world's markets. I think, therefore, we shall want a much more powerful reply from the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
There are only two other points on which I want to say a word or two. One of these points the right hon. Gentleman did not stress, and I think wisely, namely, the discrimination between home and export trade, and therefore I will not do so. I want to say a word about the bargaining powers. Surely if what the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Price) expressed in his admirable speech is what we want, namely, to build up bargaining
powers with our competitors, the last thing we should do is rigidly to tie our hands before we discuss the matter, because the President of the Board of Trade is at least giving himself an organisation which can discuss the matter. He may have a central board, and they can talk. I think that the hon. Member for Whitehaven will be obliged if I call his attention to what the Lewis Committee said on that very point with regard to a tentative German organisation. It is not quite so rigid as I understood him to express it to be. This is what they say, in page 38, after referring to the Westphalian Syndicate:
These rules as to quotas are made primarily for the home market. For the export market (including certain districts of Germany) there is set aside in advance every six months an amount equal to that actually exported in the previous six months. It is made up by a deduction from each member's sale quota in due proportion; and this deduction is made whether the member wishes to engage in the export trade or not. But no member is bound to engage in the export trade unless he wishes, and if he does so there are no fines to enforce adherence to his quota. Consequently the export quotas are mainly important through their effect on the calculation of the quotas for sale at home.
That throws a definite light on the statement of the hon. Member as to the way the scheme operates in Germany. Outside this House, all round the coast, is felt the greatest apprehension as to the way in which this thing will work with regard to the export trade, first through the central organisation, and then through the district organisations, not as at present on a voluntary basis like the Five County Scheme, but equipped with all the statutory powers and penalties of an Act of Parliament. I think that my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is the natural way to get what I understand the Committee want, namely, to keep up our export trade in coal. I venture to suggest that the method comprised later on in the Bill is the unnatural way, because it will undoubtedly provoke reactions, some of which, I think, were in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull although they were not expressed in his speech, namely, upon coal used for bunkers and trawlers competing with coal sold to our foreign competitors for shipping and trawling. I will not pursue that point now. I can assure the
right hon. Gentleman that there is, as far as I can gather, from those concerned in the coal trade in my division, the gravest apprehension of the standardising by quota of the trade in export coal.

Mr. HARTSHORN: It is very unfortunate that we have to discuss this matter without having before us the schemes which ultimately are to be produced under this Bill. Up to now we have simply had to go upon our imagination. We have had to make guesses, and we have assumed a set of conditions which may never come into existence, each Member assuming anything he cares to assume. The one general, underlying assumption of all the criticism is that the coalowners of this country are a set of consummate fools with absolutely no ability for protecting their own interests. I cannot imagine that some of the speeches would have been delivered had it been kept in mind that the coalowners and their commercial staffs are highly efficient men who know their business. I have no doubt whatever of the knowledge and efficiency of those engaged on the commercial side of the industry. I think that we have as highly efficient men—when I say that I mean those who understand the commercial side of the mining industry in this country—as there are to be found anywhere else. The methods adopted, no doubt, make it impossible for many of them to put their knowledge, skill, and ability to the best use.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), for instance, referred to contracts being made a year in advance, and he was speaking of firsthand knowledge. He said that the whole of the coal was not sold on yearly contracts. Day by day on the exchange "spec" sales have to be provided for. He was afraid that under this system we should lose a lot of these sales because of the schemes which are to be brought into existence. Surely the coalowners of this country and the commercial men who are running that business know all about the annual contracts which are made and all about the amount of coal which is sold upon "spec" and they will make provision in their schemes for meeting conditions of that description. There is no industry in this country in which the statistics, the data and the facts available are so complete as they
are in connection with the mining industry. The coalowners, with their expert commercial men, can estimate to within a very narrow margin what will be the requirements month after month in the mining industry both at home and abroad. I am perfectly satisfied that when these schemes are being drawn up under this Measure by the coalowners they will make ample provision for all things to which reference has been made in this Debate, and safeguard and protect their interests against the calamities which have been apprehended by several hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in this Debate.
6.0 p.m.
It has been suggested that we may get a big demand for export coal, and that we are going to limit the amount which we shall send abroad and that then our foreign competitor will come in and take it. The President of the Board of Trade has made it abundantly clear that neither in the terms of the Bill nor in the intention of the Government is the Measure meant in any shape or form to limit output or to make it impossible to supply the largest possible demand for which there may be a call at any time. The coalowners are not going to prepare any scheme which will put them out of competition in foreign markets, and they would be consummate fools if they did so. This legislation will give to the coalowners of this country, as has been said more than once in this Debate, a negotiating and bargaining power. I care not whether it is for the limitation of prices or, as an hon. Member has just said, for the allocation and demarcation of areas in foreign countries, but in any case it will give them a bargaining power which will enable them to make international agreements for the elimination from our export business of that element of cut-throat competition which has had such a disastrous effect hitherto.
That being the case, I hope that this Committee is going to give a little bit of credit to the men who will be drawing up the schemes for having a knowledge of this industry and of the kind of schemes which will be required to safeguard the interests of the industry. If we keep the fact in mind that the very people whose interests are involved are the very people who will have to devise and draw up these schemes, we shall be less apprehen-
sive as to the possibilities of what will take place under them. If I believed that this Bill would result in some of the consequences which have been predicted by hon. Members I should certainly be as much opposed to it as anybody, but I am quite satisfied that when these schemes are drawn up by the coalowners these fears will prove to be entirely unfounded, and that the coalowners will look after themselves.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This Amendment is undoubtedly important, but I think the Committee will now be able to come to a decision, especially in view of the crowded programme. In that case I will content myself with one or two observations only in reply. In answer to the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), I agree with 95 per cent. of his speech as to the importance of our export trade, but there is a slight error when he suggests that the object of this legislation is to restrict the output in such a way as to penalise our export trade. The difference between the two sides of the Committee is this: Hon. Members on the Liberal side seek to take this export of coal entirely outside the Regulations for the purpose of safeguarding our commercial enterprises. We on this side say that in the interests of the coal industry as a whole, and in order to prevent the possible sale of coal at a loss, it is necessary to keep all production under the regulation of the quota, and we have provided in the district schemes for the complete elasticity which is undoubtedly necessary in regard to the case of the export trade. What form does that elasticity take? It provides that there can be an immediate response in the basic tonnage, and in the quota applied to it, and there is also that elasticity in a modification in the basic tonnage from day to day and from hour to hour that this industry may in its export trade demand. The hon. Member is quite right in saying that under the Five Counties Scheme the quota was altered three times within a single month, and under the schemes proposed by this Bill there will be all that kind of rapid operation.
The object of this Bill is not to sell less coal abroad, but to sell more coal abroad, subject to this consideration, that it is sold at an economic price. I have never met anyone in the long course of these discussions who has suggested that
we should sell coal at home or abroad at a loss, and to anyone who makes that proposition I have nothing to say except this, that he would wind up this industry very soon. The short reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is contained in the figures of the Five Counties Scheme for the last three years 1927, 1928 and 1929. In 1927, before that scheme came into operation, there was sent through the Humber ports about 2,300,000 tons of coal. The scheme came into operation in 1928, and in that year the exports had bounded up to 3,700,000 tons. Last year, in the full operation of that scheme, no doubt stimulated by the cold period, the export of coal through the

Humber ports was 6,500,000 tons; and I say, without a moment's hesitation, that this was due overwhelmingly to the operation of the Five Counties Scheme. I have shown conclusively, I think, that there is the necessary elasticity in the Bill and the necessary elasticity in the schemes when they come into operation; and there is a manifest advantage to the export trade. With this explanation, I hope that the Committee will now be able to come to a decision.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 272.

Division No. 218.]
AYES.
[6.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Harbord, A.


Albery, Irving James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Haslam, Henry C.


Aske, Sir Robert
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Astor, Viscountess
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Atkinson, C.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Beaumont, M. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Berry, Sir George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hurd, Percy A.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Elmley, Viscount
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
England, Colonel A.
Iveagh, Countess of


Bird, Ernest Roy
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Birkett, W. Norman
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Ferguson, Sir John
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Boyce, H. L.
Fielden, E. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bracken, B.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Foot, Isaac.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Briscoe, Richard George
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Buchan, John
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Burton, Colonel H. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lleweilln, Major J. J.


Butler, R. A.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Locker-Lampton, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Carver, Major W. H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Long, Major Eric


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Glassey, A. E.
Lymington, Viscount


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Grace, John
Macquisten, F. A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Granville, E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Gray, Milner
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Christie, J. A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Meller, R. J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Millar, J. D.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatnan)


Colville, Major D. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mond, Hon. Henry


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hanbury, C.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Muirhead, A. J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Train, J.


Nathan, Major H. L.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wallace, Capt. D. E, (Hornsey)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Warrender, Sir Victor


O'Neill, Sir H.
Savery, S. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Scott, James
Wayland, Sir William A.


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wells, Sydney R.


Penny, Sir George
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
White, H. G.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smithers, Waldron
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Somerset, Thomas
Withers, Sir John James


Purbrick, R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Pybus, Percy John
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Womersley, W. J.


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ramsbotham, H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Remer, John R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)



Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, Sir F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Todd, Capt. A. J.
 and Major Owen.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Day, Harry
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Devlin, Joseph
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Dukes, C.
Kelly, W. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Duncan, Charles
Kennedy, Thomas


Ammon, Charles George
Ede, James Chuter
Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Angell, Norman
Edmunds, J. E.
Kinley, J.


Arnott, John
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Knight, Holford


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lang, Gordon


Ayles, Walter
Egan, W. H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lathan, G.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Freeman, Peter
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Barnes, Alfred John
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Batey, Joseph
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith. N.)
Lawrence, Susan


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Bellamy, Albert
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lawson, John James


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gill, T. H.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central)
Gillett, George M.
Leach, W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gossling, A. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Benson, G.
Gould, F.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lees, J.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lindley, Fred W.


Bowen, J. W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Logan, David Gilbert


Broad, Francis Alfred
Groves, Thomas E.
Longbottom, A. W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Grundy, Thomas W.
Longden, F.


Bromfield, William
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bromley, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lowth, Thomas


Brooke, W.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lunn, William


Brothers, M.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Harbison, T. J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hardie, George D.
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
McElwee, A.


Buchanan, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
McEntee, V. L.


Burgess, F. G.
Haycock, A. W.
Mackinder, W.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hayday, Arthur
McKinlay, A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Hayes, John Henry
MacLaren, Andrew


Cameron, A. G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
McShane, John James


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Charleton, H. C.
Herriotts, J.
Mansfield, W.


Chater, Daniel
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
March, S.


Church, Major A. G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Marcus, M.


Clarke, J. S.
Hoffman, P. C.
Markham, S. F.


Cluse, W. S.
Hollins, A.
Marley, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hopkin, Daniel
Marshall, Fred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Horrabin, J. F.
Mathers, George


Compton, Joseph
Hudson, James H. (Hudderefield)
Matters, L. W.


Cove, William G.
Isaacs, George
Melville, Sir James


Daggar, George
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Messer, Fred


Dallas, George
Johnston, Thomas
Middleton, G.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Mills, J. T.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Milner, J.




Montague, Frederick
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Morley, Ralph
Sanders, W. S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sandham, E.
Tillett, Ben


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sawyer, G. F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Mort, D. L.
Scrymgeour, E.
Toole, Joseph


Moses, J. J. H.
Scurr, John
Tout, W. J.


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sexton, James
Townend, A. E.


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Muff, G.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Turner, B.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Sherwood, G. H.
Vaughan, D. J.


Murnin, Hugh
Shield, George William
Viant, S. P.


Naylor, T. E.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wallace, H. W.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shillaker, J. F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shinwell, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Oldfield, J. R.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Simmons, C. J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Palin, John Henry
Sinkinson, George
Wellock, Wilfred


Paling, Wilfrid
Sitch, Charles H.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Palmer, E. T.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
West, F. R.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Potts, John S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Price, M. P.
Snell, Harry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Raynes, W. R.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Richards, R.
Sorensen, R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Longhb'gh)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Stephen, Campbell
Wise, E. F.


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wright, W. (Ruthergien)


Ritson, J.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sullivan, J.



Romerll, H. G.
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T. Henderson.


Rowson, Guy
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment which I select is that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans)—in page 4, line 26, after the word "by," to insert the words "the amount of the district allocation or."

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This Amendment relates to the question of arbitrations, and the same question arises on Clause 3 of the Bill. I propose not to move this Amendment here, but to move it on Clause 3.

Colonel LANE FOX: I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, to leave out paragraph (a).
This paragraph permits levies by the central council on the districts for the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal. The procedure involved is much on the lines of the Five Counties Scheme but this is, of course, a very much enlarged edition of that scheme and there is a restriction and a want of elasticity in a scheme of this kind which is on a statutory basis as compared with a voluntary scheme. This proposal in the Bill sets up a general system of a levy on coal which is produced to be sold for home consumption, in order to provide a subsidy on the export coal which is sold
below cost price. It has been said in favour of this proposal that it will bring no unfair advantage to any section of the coal trade and will inflict no unfairness on any district. It is quite true that the majority in the central council will naturally represent those who are producing for home consumption, because that council being appointed on a tonnage basis, and the tonnage of home consumption being considerably larger than the export tonnage, the representatives of the home consumption will always have the advantage but they are not likely to be subject to unfair levy by the exporting districts.
A much wider and bigger principle however is involved. It is quite true that the coal industry in this Bill have arranged for a system which will not hurt themselves, but what about the damage which they are going to do to other interests? What about the damage that they are going to do to the country? I look upon that as a far larger question than what is actually going to be the effect upon even such an important industry as the coal industry itself. I suggest, and I hope to prove that this is a short-sighted as well as a selfish policy on the part of the coal industry, and I am surprised to find the
Government supporting such a policy in this Bill. If there is anything essential at the present moment, in view of the state of employment and the general condition of affairs, it is that the heavy industries should get all the encouragement and help that we can give them. That is so for two reasons. They are the chief consumers of coal in this country, and they are very large employers of labour. This paragraph (a) amounts to a proposal that we should subsidise the foreign competitors against whom our heavy industries are finding it so extremely difficult to compete; that we should let them have British coal at a lower rate than that at which home industry can get it, by means of a subsidy which is to be raised at the expense of the home supply on which our heavy industries rely.
It is proposed that we should raise the cost of production in the coal industry generally at home in order that coal may be sold to the foreigner at a lower rate. Whatever good that system may do to the coal industry, it is going to do considerable damage to other home industries in this country and particularly to those industries in which it is so necessary at the moment that there should be better trade. I say this is a short-sighted policy because the prosperity of our home heavy industries is essential. It is to the interest of the coal industry itself that these heavy industries should prosper, in view of the large consumption of coal which they represent. In addition to that, it is a short-sighted policy because a subsidy of this kind will inevitably he met by a counter-subsidy. The system will not last. It will not be effective but it will seriously damage home industry without being of any permanent help to the coal industry. This is a crazy scheme and I should very much like to know what is the private opinion of the Lord Privy Seal upon it. It is said that the same thing has been done voluntarily under the Five Counties scheme but that proves nothing, except that the proposal in the Bill is not necessary, because, if such arrangements are required at all, they can be arrived at voluntarily and the proposal in the Bill is not wanted. But I deny that the fact of its being possible under a voluntary scheme of a limited character, applying to one particular coal-field, however big that one
coal-field may be, means that therefore the proposal is justified on this scale and on a statutory basis.
This scheme will be on a huge scale. It will have all the pains and penalties attaching to a statutory provision surrounding it, and it will not have the elasticity of a voluntary local scheme like the Five Counties scheme. To propose that we should make a scheme of that sort statutory, compulsory, and general is, I submit, to suggest an act of madness to which I hope this Committee will not agree. There is no precedent for a proposal to endow any great ring with such far-reaching statutory powers. It is a proposal which is not justified by the Report of the Commission presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). It is not justified by the reports of any of the numerous committees of inquiry which have dealt with the industry, nor is it supported by the advice of any body which has hitherto considered the conditions of the industry. It was not even suggested at the last Election. It has not the sanction of any large body of people in the country. I should like to ask whether any hon. Member opposite who stood for a constituency on the North East coast would have dared to tell the blast-furnace men that he was going to vote for a scheme to subsidise the foreign competitors who have kept those men out of employment for so long; that he was going to vote in favour of giving those foreign competitors cheap coal and at the same time raising the cost of production of coal in this country—the coal on which our own industries depend. Many wild promises were made in the mining districts at the last, Election, but not one single candidate in a mining district, whatever other promises he may have made, ever promised the miners that he would vote for a proposal of this kind for the purpose of securing a better export of coal. This scheme has no justification or sanction behind it. I do not want to say anything which is too harsh but the fact is that in this matter the Miners Federation and the Mining Association are standing in together to bleed the British public, and they are being helped to do so by this Government, whose pledges and promises in the past certainly ought not to justify such a scheme. The
proposal, as I say, has no sanction in the country and I hope it will have no sanction here.

Mr. FRANK OWEN: This Amendment seeks to leave out the most unfortunate provision in a most deplorable Bill. It is a provision which violates every principle of sound business and, if I may say so, every principle of sound Socialism. Like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment I cannot imagine any hon. Member opposite standing up in his constituency at the last Election to say that if a Labour Government were returned to power, that Government would vote for putting up the price of home coal in order to bring down the price of the coal which we sell abroad. It has been argued from these benches, that the effect of this proposal would be to subsidise foreign manufacturers at the expense of the home manufacturer, and no doubt that will be answered from the benches opposite by the statement that to-day a great many of our foreign competitors are competing with us by means of cartelised coal. I am anticipating the argument but what has that to do with the principle which we are discussing here? The purpose of this proposal is to protect the home market and to give Protection in its most naked and unashamed form. If it were the Protection that is advocated by hon. Members above the Gangway, they would be able to claim, at least, that the foreigner would bear the burden, but this proposal contemplates that the home consumer shall bear the burden of the coal which we sell to our foreign competitors. It is a measure to protect the home market, because in districts like South Wales, about three-fifths of the total output goes in export coal.
The Government are proposing that the home consumer should bear the racket of raising the cost of the home coal, because they cannot expect the foreigner, and they cannot compel the foreigner, to pay the additional cost, as they hoped to compel the home consumer. It will be argued that the object of this proposal is to force down the price of our export coal so that we shall gain a greater proportion of the market abroad against the glorious day when all Europe will accept the quota. It has been called an export levy, but I prefer to call it an extort levy, because that would be the purpose
of it, as far as the people of this country are concerned. The President of the Board of Trade hopes that by this means he will recover a greater part of our export market, but does he really expect the Committee to believe that? Does he really expect that by subsidising our export coal, we are not going to provoke a similar subsidisation of coal produced in other countries? Does he really propose that other Governments and other consumers abroad are going to lie down under this kind of thing? A Socialist Government can despoil the people of this country, but they are not yet in a position to despoil the people of other countries.
I was talking yesterday with a distinguished mining Member on the opposite side of the Committee, and he assured me that this subsidy levy would not actually come into operation, but would merely be held in reserve, the object being to force a cartel in coal in the European coalfield. He used the phrase that it would allow a greater measure of competitive flexibility. There will have to be a much greater measure of conscientious flexibility in this House if a Measure of this kind is to get through tonight. I am not going to raise the question of subsidised grain, although, speaking as an agricultural Member, I think that it should be mentioned. I do not know how the President of the Board of Trade can pretend that this Government is protesting against the dumping of German corn in this country, when he is getting ready to dump our coal into the foreign countries which are sending their corn here. This policy of subsidisation is going to be borne by the consumer in this country, and it will be borne very heavily by the farmers in the agricultural divisions. This Government pays no attention to the woes and troubles of the farmers, and, therefore, the only thing to do in a case like this is to argue from the point of view of the miner.
The operation of this levy will be exactly the same as the operation of the levy granted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin). Part of the subsidy granted in 1925 went to owners' profits, and part went towards miners' wages. It was bitterly denounced by some right hon. Members opposite. One of them was the
First Commissioner of Works who, before he took in hand the congenial task of improving our parks and public morals, used to improve our minds through the medium of "Lansbury's Labour Weekly." In that periodical he told us that the subsidy granted by the right hon. Member for Bewdley was the subsidisation of profit; he said that it was a corrupt bargain between the coal bosses and their friends in office. There is a corrupt bargain now. The coal bosses are still there, and to the coal bosses have been added the trade union bosses and their friends opposite. It is a most unholy trinity. Then there was the Lord Privy Seal, who told the railwaymen at that time that he deprecated the granting of that subsidy, because he said that, if you grant a subsidy to one trade and bolster it up, why cannot you grant a subsidy to every other trade? That position is unassailable, for every argument that can be adduced for an export levy in order to maintain the miners' standard of living, can be adduced with 10 times the force for a levy or subsidy on grain in order to protect the standard of living of the agricultural workers. They are a much lower paid body of men than the miners, and they are a body of people who will be hit directly by the operation of this subsidy on home-produced coal.
The miners are supposed for the moment to have a guaranteed wage, but I want to remind the Committee that the miners' wage will come up for reconsideration in a few months. What is going to happen in the meantime? Every coalowner abroad will strain every nerve to force down the cost of production abroad, to force down wages particularly, in order to get as much of the market as he can to meet the subsidised coal which we are going to dump abroad if this proposal is carried. In a few months, we are going to face exactly the same position as we had to face at the time of the subsidy which was granted by the right hon. Member for Bewdley. We shall start a new price-cutting war in the European coalfield. At the end of that time, the coalowners will come to this House, and sit on the doorstep and importune, beg and blackmail the House to give them more powers to fleece the consumers of this country. That is an intolerable position. We on these benches
were returned, not to handle out public money by the bucketful to this interest and to that class, but to get as much of a fair deal as we could for the great mass of the people, and I hope that we shall fight this sectional dole at every stage of its progress.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox), and I do so because this particular paragraph will perpetuate a state of affairs which, in the long run, will prove to be absolutely disastrous to the trade and industry of this country. The President of the Board of Trade has said, not once but many times, that it is not the intention of this Bill that export coal should be sold abroad at a lower price that the cost of production, but there is not a single word in the Bill to prevent export coal being sent abroad below the cost of production. This paragraph actually authorises that being done. We know that it is being done at the present time, but I object to the fact that legal authorisation is being given to a principle of that kind. Everybody who knows anything of the state of affairs on the Continent knows perfectly well that English coal is to be bought at 27s. 6d. per ton, which is practically £1 less than the price at which similar coal is being sold in London.
This paragraph authorises and perpetuates and gives legal sanction to the continuation of a state of affaire like that. It will authorise and encourage the sale of British coal to our Continental trade rivals at a price much below the cost of production. That subsidised coal will be shipped to Stockholm and Gothen to provide cheap coal for the steel industries there, which compete very heavily, not only abroad, but in this country with the products of Birmingham and Sheffield. That coal will be shipped to Copenhagen to be used to run the agricultural machinery in Denmark to enable them to produce butter, corn and sugar at prices with which we are unable to compete, because the industries of this country will have to pay the full market price for their coal, whereas our competitors abroad are apparently going to get it at a reduced price. It is going to be sent to Belgium to provide a cheap supply of coal for Liege, which is competing with
every product of Sheffield and Birmingham, not only here but in the markets abroad.
One of the problems which we have to face to-day is whether to take Belgian rails at £2 a ton less than they can be manufactured here, or to be patriotic and buy our own goods. We may question which we will do, but in the markets abroad there is no question; they take the cheaper goods every time, and that is one of the reasons why the works at Sheffield and Birmingham are standing idle, while Liege and places of a similar character on the Continent are, to all intents and purposes, running full time. Again, this cheap coal will be sent to Calais and Dunkirk to run the cement works, and again compete with British products in all parts of the world. If we give a legal sanction to this state of affairs, it will spell disaster to the industries of this country. It is no good providing our competitors with the raw material of their trade at lower prices than we are prepared to provide it to our own manufacturers. It is because I honestly believe that this practice, if continued and given legal sanction, will in the long run prove the ruin of the industries of this country, that I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Major NATHAN: I approach this Amendment from rather a different angle than that of the right hon. Gentleman who moved it, and from that of those who have spoken upon it. I take the actual words of the paragraph, which it is proposed to delete, which provides for a levy, including of course an export levy,
for the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal.
I ask myself, in the first instance, exactly where that proposal will lead us, and what it will mean. I have taken out the monthly average of British coal exports for the last three years and the year 1925. I have omitted 1926 for a reason which will be obvious to the Committee. I direct the attention of the Committee to the very remarkable figures. In 1925, the value per ton f.o.b. was 19s. 10d., and the amount of coal exported was rather under 4,250,000 tons. In 1927 the f.o.b. value per ton had gone down to 17s. 10d., and the exports increased to just over 4,250,000 tons. In 1928 the f.o.b. value per ton was reduced still further to 15s. 7d., but the exports were reduced
to as low as 4,170,000 tons, for the month. It was not until 1929, when the price was slightly increased to 16s. 2d., that the figure reached 5,000,000 tons for the month. From those figures emerges the remarkable fact of the extraordinary inelasticity of the demand for coal. Those figures show that in 1928, as compared with 1925, we exported 64,000 tons a month less, although the price had been diminished by 4s. 3d. per ton, on the average. The only increase in export that there has been was in 1929, when there was not only an increase in exports, but also a slight increase in price; but that, of course, reflected in great part the temporary advantage which British exporters secured in the Continental market by reason of the abnormal conditions arising from the frost in the early months of last year, and no arguments can be deduced from those special conditions.
We have, by reason of the reduced prices of 1927 and 1928, recovered a small part of the lost ground in France and Northern Europe, but there is one very curious fact with regard to the export tonnage of 1929 in particular when compared with the 1925 tonnage, and that is that such gains as there have been have occurred largely in the exports to France, Belgium and Germany, which are themselves coal-producing countries and which have, to a large extent, been suffering from the same problem as ourselves of over-production. It is a rather remarkable phenomenon. When we come to non-coal-producing countries like Scandinavia we find that, although there is a reduction of 3s. 1d. in the average selling price per ton, the exports to Scandinavia were reduced by over 100,000 tons, per monthly average, in 1929, compared with 1925. As regards South America, the ground regained is negligible, although the price was reduced by as much as 5s. 5d. per ton on the average. Looking at the figures, it is difficult to dogmatise upon the future, but I think the President of the Board of Trade will agree that the most recent trade reports point to signs of a slight slackening in the demand for British coal on the Continent. The probable figure for our export coal is a stabilised figure of about 60,000,000 tons per year—that looks very much like the maximum which we are likely to be able to export—at an average price of about 16s. per ton f.o.b. I think it is not
unlikely that the President of the Board of Trade, with all the facilities for examining the figures which he has at his disposal, will agree with that prognosis of the future course of the British coal exporting industry. If we are now to adopt the policy of subsidy which is indicated by this Sub-section (3, a) the results of 1928 suggest that there is no guarantee at all that the loss of revenue per ton will be made up by an increased turnover. All the facts and figures of the past few years point to the contrary.

The question to which I now turn, and it is one which I feel has not been frankly faced, is this: Who is to pay this export levy? I take it that it is common ground that our production of coal is in the neighbourhood of 250,000,000 to 260,000,000 tons a year. I put our exports at the figure of 60,000,000 tons, leaving out of that account the 16,000,000 tons of bunker coal supplied to foreign shipping, because obviously no case can be made out for subsidising that; it would merely mean giving an advantage to foreign shipping and accelerating the change over from coal to oil fuel. That is the subject of a subsequent Amendment to be moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman). Taking the total figure of production at 250,000,000 tons to 260,000,000 tons and deducting from it the 60,000,000 of exports and the 16,000,000 of bunker coal, we are left with rather less than 180,000,000 tons available to bear the subsidy.

I pause in passing to point out that a subsidy of 1s. a ton on export coal would require a levy of 4d. a ton on the whole 180,000,000 tons of coal for domestic consumption. But the whole of that 180,000,000 tons will not be available to bear this levy. The President of the Board of Trade himself, speaking on the Second Reading on the 17th December, pointed out that the levy is to be utilised for the purpose of assisting either the export trade or, it may be, the supply of coal to the depressed industries in Great Britain. I now direct attention to an inquiry as to how much of the 180,000,000 tons will be available to bear this levy. How is this 180,000,000 tons appropriated? I have had the figures taken out, and these are the results in percentages: gas works use just over
10 per cent., in round figures; electricity, just under 6 per cent.; railways, 8 per cent.; iron and steel, 12–2 per cent.; coastwise shipping, under 1 per cent.; collieries, 8.2 per cent.; house coal, 24½ per cent., and general manufacturing and other purpose, just under 30 per cent.

It is quite clear from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on Second Reading, and if it were not clear from that speech it would be clear from the lamentable facts themselves, that the coal for the iron and steel industry, which takes 12½ per cent. of the coal for domestic consumption, cannot be called upon to bear any levy. Its difficulties are too well known to require stressing now. I scarcely believe that coal for coastwise shipping, which is responsible for 1 per cent. of the consumption, would be made liable for the levy. Collieries themselves are responsible for a consumption of over 8 per cent. of the coal used in this country. Obviously it would be logically absurd to ask the collieries themselves to bear a levy. As regards railways, which are responsible for another 8 per cent. of the consumption, it is palpable that they will have no margin out of which to pay a tax on coal, unless, of course, they raise freights for goods or fares for passengers.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Or both!

Major NATHAN: Or, as my hon. and learned Friend says, raise the rates for both goods and passengers, with obvious repercussions which I will not stay to discuss. I assume, and I think it is a generous assumption towards the President of the Board of Trade, that one half of the 30 per cent. of domestic consumption attributable to manufacturing industries and other purposes, is to be accounted for by the depressed industries. That leaves about 55 per cent. of the whole of the domestic consumption available for bearing the levy. In round figures, I put it at 100,000,000 tons. A subsidy of 1s. a ton in favour of export coal, which amounts to 4d. per ton on the whole of the domestic consumption, would mean not far short of 1s.—9d. to 1s.—if we took only the coal which is available to bear this levy.
7.0 p.m.
I will not stay to point out the effects, although I have the figures worked out, upon the ordinary small man who buys coal in small quantities. Hon. Members opposite, like hon. Members on this side,
know quite well that in some of our poorest districts, like that part of East London which I represent, there are hundreds, thousands, of families, who buy their coal by the sixpennyworth; and I am told that whereas they at present get for their 6d. a large piece of coal and a small piece of coal yet if this levy were put on they would get only the large piece of coal, and the small piece of coal would go to those whom my hon. Friend referred to as the "bosses of the coal industry." It is the householders, the gas and electricity works and the non-depressed industries which are to be called upon to bear this levy. Sometimes it seems to be forgotten that gas and electricity are used just as much by the depressed industries as by the prosperous industries; and any increase in household coal prices will tend to emphasise the difficulties of the cost-of-living index at the present time, derange real wages and press very hardly on workers receiving a remuneration nearly as low, or quite as low as, that of the miners. My hon. Friend beside me has referred to the agricultural worker. I would only remind the Committee of the skilled worker, the engineer, the shipyard worker, and the cotton operative, all of whom will have to bear out of their meagre earnings or their unemployment pay the increased cost that will be imposed upon them by the proposals now before the Committee.

Sir S. ROBERTS: I would point out that this Amendment has not got entirely all the arguments in its favour, and that, although, taking it on the balance the Amendment ought to be carried, there are some things I would like to say about it from experience of levies and of an export subsidy. We have to remember that we must sell coal, not at the price we like, but at the world price. It has to be sold at the world price, or it is not sold at all. If it is not sold, then it remains in the ground, and there is no other coal that can be got out at home to take its place, and the output of pits dealing in exports goes down considerably. If the output goes down, it means that the cost of the other coal brought up is increased. It does therefore pay at times to subsidise an export in order to keep up output if you can do it in such a way as to reduce and not to
increase the cost of coal to the home consumer.
For the last two years, in what is known as the Five Counties scheme, we have been working under the principle of a voluntary levy. I can tell the House that I do practically no exporting whatever. I have been paying 3d. a ton all the time for over two years, and I say that I have had value for my money. That is a very different thing to a compulsory levy. Where you come to a tax of that sort then, on general principle, taxes should be put on by Parliament and not by a committee of this kind. Although I would very dearly like to see some of my neighbours who have avoided this payment made to pay, yet on general principles and on principles of justice I feel that this Bill should not make them pay if they feel that they have no desire to do so. This levy will really be a tax put on by a committee of owners and, on general principles and as a member of the public, I am not able to support it.
There is another matter. I may be of a suspicious nature, but I see in it the germ of what in 1921 we knew in this House as the proposal for a national pool. I see that possibility in a levy of this sort really controlled by a central committee. I do not say that there is any such idea on the part of the Government or its supporters, but I see in it the germ whereby a national wage pool might be created. Believing that to be an evil and a distinct disadvantage to the part of the country where I live and work, I cannot do other than support this Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope we shall very soon hear from the President of the Board of Trade what the arguments are that can be advanced in support of this particular Clause. I can see no merit in it whatsoever, and no justification for its finding a place in this Bill. The President of the Board of Trade has justified his quota scheme on many grounds, but you can search the whole of that scheme, you can search all his speeches, and you cannot find a single word of justification for imposing a compulsory levy. It is no part of a quota scheme to impose a compulsory levy. You can have as monopolistic and as drastic a curtailment of production as you please, but it is quite irrelevant to it to intro-
duce a compulsory levy. You can form the most comprehensive trust in the world, a statutory penal trust if you like, but why need there be any compulsory levy? I cannot conceive why it is necessary to introduce this proposal, and the President of the Board of Trade has to make out a very strong case for a proposal so universally unpopular. If it is good business that there should be a levy, that owners either in this country generally, or owners in a particular district, should make some arrangement among themselves to subsidise a particular class of coal, they are perfectly free to do so without any provision in a Bill. If the bulk of the owners wish to engage in an operation of this kind, there is nothing to stop them doing it, but why should they be compelled to do so? Let the Committee look at the extraordinary extent to which compulsion is being brought.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said in an earlier stage of these Debates, that his Liberalism taught him that true liberty is only to be found in some measure of control. I sincerely hope that he is going to revolt from a control as alien to all business principles and as alien to all commonsense and common fairness as this proposal. Look what the President of the Board of Trade is proposing. He is not merely proposing that in a district a few dissentient owners should be compelled to come in, and there is very good reason against compelling a single dissentient owner, however small, to come in under a compulsory levy. He is proposing to us, not simply to coerce a dissentient owner here or there, but to coerce whole districts in order to make them come in. Under this provision, if Scotland or Lancashire were dead against the levy and said, "This is not only going to do us no good, but is going to be a positive handicap to us in our business and in our resources," nevertheless, provided that a majority of coalowners in other districts could be found to think that a levy would suit them, whole districts like that, every single coalowner in which objected to the scheme, could be compelled to come in.
What justification is going to be offered for compulsion of this kind? You are compelling people quite far enough
already under this scheme. You are compelling every single owner in the country to join this involuntary trust, to join a quota, and to have his production limited whether he likes it or not. The Government are going, unless they give way, or we succeed in defeating them, to force everybody into a price ring from which there is no escape. Surely, that is enough compulsion to force upon an industry. What are the Government doing here? They are forcing these owners against their will to contribute to a levy which they consider is bad business; they are forcing them to conduct their business in a way which they think thoroughly unsound. That is bad enough, but they are doing much more. By forcing them to contribute to this levy, they are making them pay out of their own resources, which may be straitened, for something in which they do not believe and for a policy which is going to benefit their competitors and injure themselves. In the whole history of legislation, under democracy or under tyranny, has there ever been a similar instance? There have been instances where men's property has been taken from them, but they have been given compensation, though sometimes inadequate compensation, but it has been reserved to the President of the Board of Trade not merely to take away a man's property, whether he likes it or not, but to take it away and give it to his competitor to use for the benefit of the competitor and wholly against the will of the colliery owner himself.
So much for the unfairness to the colliery undertakings, but what about the unfairness to the people, of this country? If some great injustice was to be done, it might be said that we should do it because it was greatly in the interests of the country as a whole. But what interest in this country is going, to be served by this compulsory levy? So far from any interest in this country being served, the people of the country are going to pay twice or three times through this policy. I will justify that statement up to the hilt, and show that it is the British consumer who has to pay. Admittedly, the whole object of the Bill is to raise the price of coal. You cannot raise the price of coal against the foreign buyer in a neutral market who has the choice of all the markets from which to buy, and who is going to buy at the world price.
The British consumer has to pay twice over apart from this levy. He pays, first of all, the increase in price which all coal ought to bear and then, because foreign coal cannot bear any increase and because you cannot force the foreigner to pay, the amount of the increase which would have fallen on the coal sold abroad has to be added to the price of the coal sold in this country. In that way, he pays twice. But the Government are not content with that; they are going to make him pay a third time. They are going to make him pay this compulsory levy which is absolutely unlimited in amount. An hon. Member has pointed out that a bounty of 1s. a ton would mean a levy of at least 4d. The unfortunate consumer in this country, therefore, is going to be made to pay a third time in order that industries or public utilities or any buyers in other countries may receive artificially cheap coal, subsidised coal from here, which is ultimately going to pass as a raw material into the industries which are going to compete with the British consumer and which are competing with him sufficiently heavily already. That is a crazy proposal.
Then you have the President of the Board of Trade going to Geneva the week after next, and one of the things he has promised us he is going to take up is the question of subsidised imports into this country. Is he going to be able to take it up? He is going to make it a condition of any convention that he may wish to commit us to. What answer is he going to have to the country against whom he lodges a complaint of subsidised exports when he comes straight from this House, having fathered a scheme for a compulsory levy on coal, which makes it at once a Government subsidy? As long as this is merely some arrangement made between willing coalowners, who may like to have a cartel among themselves, no one can object. But the moment the President puts this into an Act of Parliament, from which no one can escape, and indeed which they are bound to observe, under penalties, at once the right hon. Gentleman, who to-day has got to try and prevent subsidised produce coming into this country, becomes the author of a proposal for exporting Government subsidised coal to foreign markets. Could he possibly go into his
international negotiations with a more lop-sided policy?
This proposal is gravely unjust to the coalowners in this country, it is gravely injurious to every consumer of coal in this country, and it is gravely injurious even to the whole agricultural community in this country, because you are making it more difficult to make any representations. I say to the President of the Board of Trade that it is no necessary part of this Bill or of the quota scheme that it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with it, and he ought to drop it; and if he is going to say it is a necessary part of this Bill and an integral part of his quota system, he ought never to have introduced such a Bill into this House.

Mr. MANDER: In rising to support the Amendment, I desire to direct attention to one particular point, and that is the international point of view. I support the Amendment because I think the attitude of the Government is thoroughly reactionary and quite indefensible on the ground of engaging in international negotiations. In this proposal to-night they are doing the exact opposite of what this country has promised to do, and what they themselves are trying to do; and I will read to the Committee three short extracts from documents and speeches made at Geneva, the last of the three being the most important. The first is an extract from the World Economic Conference, held at Geneva in May, 1927, when the Conference agreed unanimously to the following statement:
The fact that subsidies are in certain circumstances held to interfere less with the liberty of trading than Customs tariffs does not make it any the less necessary to lay stress on the hidden dangers inherent in this means of encouraging production and exportation. The greater the number of countries which have recourse to this practice, the more difficult will it be for other countries to refrain from following their example. Thus the attempt to restore foreign trade to normal conditions meets with a real obstacle in the shape of subsidies.
The Conference draws the attention of the various Governments to the true nature of direct or indirect subsidies, which are merely a palliative, and expresses the hope that Governments will, so far as possible, refrain from having recourse to them.
That was a document to which the late Government committed itself, and by which the present Government is bound. The next is the Economic Organisation
of the League of Nations "Interim Report on the International Aspects of the Problem of the Coal Industry," Geneva, 1929. Among other items suggested was the following:
(d) That the existing artificial restrictions to trade in coal and artificial stimuli to production should be abolished.
The third quotation is from a very remarkable speech made by the President of the Board of Trade himself at Geneva on the 9th September last; and here, if I may, I would like to pay a tribute to the great personal success that I know the right hon. Gentleman obtained when he made a long speech of over an hour on rather a technical subject. Being a member of the Assembly not very well known at the beginning, at the end, I understand, the Assembly was crowded, and he received a great ovation for the most interesting and appealing way in which he had dealt with the subject. On that occasion he used these words:
The Committee also mentioned the suggestion that in individual countries—and, of course, within an international scheme of the kind indicated above—there should be agreement to remove the artificial stimuli or devices of one kind or another which had been introduced for the purpose of stimulating coal production or of easing the financial or other economic difficulties of the coalfields. No one reading that Report—which, if I may say so, is one of the most valuable Reports ever issued under the auspices of the League—will doubt for a moment that there is very great danger in any artificial stimulus, whatever form it takes, whether it is a large scale subsidy, a rebate in railway rates, or any other device.
I say that those are very excellent and admirable sentiments, and I only regret that the right hon. Gentleman has so wholly and absolutely departed from them in the proposals which he brings before us to-night. He is going out to Geneva, I understand, to-morrow, and he has a difficult task before him, in which I hope he will be successful, but he is not going to make his position any the easier by going out loaded with an export subsidy on coal from this country. He is making his position absolutely impossible. What answer can he give when he is pressing other countries to abolish all subsidies, when, as the late President of the Board of Trade has just said, he has to admit that he comes hot foot from the House of Commons having proposed, and quite unnecessarily, such a levy as this? I hope
he will say that, in view of the strong opposition expressed in the Committee, he does not regard this as a vital part of his scheme, and that he will drop it. It seems to me absolutely indefensible, and in no way essential to the Coal Mines Bill itself, and I hope, if he does not himself withdraw it, the Committee will reject it.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I listened with very great interest to the speech of the late President of the. Board of Trade, and I found it rather difficult to follow. He devoted himself almost throughout, not so much to attacking what might be the consequences of this levy upon industries having to pay it, but upon the fact that it was a compulsory levy that the coalowners, whatever they might think, would have to pay. I have found it difficult throughout to follow the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning, because he does not seem to have much complaint if the coalowners themselves, to use his own language, organise themselves into a trust or by means of a cartel extract from the other industries a levy or a higher price in this way. If the owners themselves could do it, he would accept it; and because that would be the ordinary result of competition, he would simply hold up his hands, not to his domestic gods, but to the Conservative gods, and say, "We must accept what has been sent to us, because this is in the ordinary course of competition, and this cartel or this trust, as the case might be, is the result of ordinary commercial competition."

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The owners would all be free to leave it tomorrow.

Mr. BEVAN: But if benefits will come to the coalowners from a condition of this kind, as the right hon. Gentleman says they will, will anybody be anxious to leave it? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He argues, on the one hand, that here you are conferring on certain coalowners a most valuable privilege, and if that valuable privilege were the consequence of voluntary organisation on their part, he would accept it, but it becomes immediately evil and pernicious because it is part of this legislation. I understand that the main objection to this is that our competitive industries will have to pay this levy,
but a voluntary association would compel them to pay it in the same way, and the consequence would still be the same for the consuming industries. Therefore, in so far as the effect upon the other industries is concerned, there is no difference between the coalowners themselves being able to extract from the other industries a higher price for their coal, and that power being conferred upon them by Act of Parliament.
I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman much further in the very peculiar arguments with which he treated the Committee, but I find it very interesting to compare the position on the Conservative benches with the position on the Liberal benches. The Conservatives have always told us in this House—and we have listened till some of us are rather tired, and I suppose we shall have to listen until the next Election, and probably afterwards, because they will still be arguing it then—that we ought to be armed, whenever we go into an international conference to discuss this question, with some sort of bargaining power; and they have argued for tariffs, or for the right to impose tariffs, or, rather, I might put it with more accuracy the readiness of this House to impose tariffs, because that readiness on our part will enable us to enter into fiscal arrangements with other countries much more advantageous to this country.
The Liberal position, of course, is that we ought to go to every international conference in the position of a suppliant in order to negotiate. The Liberal position is that our representatives abroad will be able to convince by sweet reason—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am all for reason, but I believe, with Oliver Cromwell, in trusting God and keeping your powder dry. The conferences at Geneva are conferences of persons who are attempting to come to mutual accommodation, and it will do no harm, and probably will do an enormous amount of good, if the President of the Board Trade is able to go to Geneva and, if he finds it impossible to come to any understanding with the other coal-producing countries of Europe, I say, without the slightest hesitation, that it ought to be in the power of this country to protect its own people by taking punitive measures against the other countries unless we can come to an agreement.
Is there anything wrong about that? [An HON. MEMBER: "Tariffs!"] We have argued in this House against a tariff because it does not enable us to do that at all; it simply renders us weaker. But the proposal in this Bill is that it shall be made possible for the coalowners, if the coalowners of this country are as stupid as we are led to suppose they are—

Mr. E. BROWN: And as Mr. Cook says they are.

Mr. BEVAN: I cannot be expected in this House to undertake to defend them. It would be almost as difficult to defend them as the hon. Members opposite have found it difficult to defend the statements of their own leader on very many occasions. I should find it equally embarrassing to answer for them, and I do not propose to try to do it. I would ask hon. Members to realise that all that we are proposing now is decide the powers which are to be conferred upon the owners to make schemes, which will have to be sanctioned. The coalowners will be charged with the responsibility of meeting the National Council and coming to an agreement to impose a levy upon the various districts. [An HON. MEMBER: "At the expense of the consumer!"] The consumer ultimately will have to pay it all. To argue that the consumer has to pay is beside the point, because ultimately the price for any product has to be recovered from the consumer of it. The coalowners will have to carry out the Statute. The purpose of the levy is to facilitate the sale of coal wherever that facilitation becomes necessary and desirable. These are very serious powers, but I cannot imagine this Bill ever becoming operative in the best interests of trade unless powers of this kind are given.
What is the attack upon the Bill? It is said that this Bill is disadvantageous in that the price of coal will be artificially fixed and will not be able to change with changing conditions and circumstances, or with changing custom. It will probably be argued that the export trade is a trade in which the greatest possible amount of elasticity ought to be exercised. The right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) took part in the compilation of a big book, in which they discussed the coal trade. In that
discussion they told the country that nationalisation of the coal mines was un desirable because the price of coal might change—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): The hon. Member is going rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. BEVAN: I merely wanted to point out that the purpose of these powers is to make the sale of coal as elastic as possible in order that we might be able to meet the changing conditions of the market. It has been pointed out that our Scandinavian market has gone. Why? Because the Poles have taken it. Why has Poland been able to take it? By subsidising coal to Danzig. All that we ask for is that it may be made possible for us in future negotiations as to our quota of the international market to be able to sell our coal so as to get as large a slice of the international market as possible. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the European market is inelastic and that we have failed to secure any larger sale for our coal by lowering its price. If lowering the price of coal does not assist in getting any increased market, where comes the argument for allowing it a free competition, cheap coal, in order to increase our market I Hon. Members cannot argue that we cannot get an increased market in Europe by lowering the price of our coal and at the same time argue that artificial fixation of price prevents us from selling cheap coal and increasing our market. The argument throughout this Bill has been that we ought to be able to sell our coal as cheaply as possible, because we can only recover our market by selling our coal more cheaply.
The argument by supporters of the Amendment is that it is no use having power to cheapen coal because no matter how we cheapen it we shall never be able to sell any more coal than we are selling now. What happened in regard to France and Spain in 1927? In that year France actually put an embargo on South Wales coal because we were sending it in too cheaply. Spain did the same thing. We found it necessary at that time either to make representations, or to talk about making representations, because embargoes were threatened against our coal which was challenging the price for coal that they could obtain in France and
Spain. In 1927 when I was in the Ruhr and when I was in France in the Pas-de-Calais area, huge stacks of coal were being accumulated on the surface of the collieries because they had started intensive competition with the coal from South Wales. The coalowners told us—this caused us very serious concern at the time—that if our price cutting went on it would be necessary for them to demand some concession from their own people in order to meet the competition which we had been enabled to carry out. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the market on the Continent of Europe is inelastic. There is still a certain amount of elasticity, and it is that elasticity that we desire to strain to the utmost point in order that when we have, as we hope to get, artificial fixation of coal prices throughout Europe, we shall be able to get as large a slice of the market as possible.
I have not been attempting to visualise how this plan is going to operate. There is some merit in the observation that it is a foolish thing to reduce the price of coal to our competitors over long periods and to increase the price to our home producers and consumers. No one denies the merit of that argument; it is a perfectly sound argument, but I would ask hon. Members whether they really think that the coalowners of this country, with all the interlocking interests which they have, are going to be so foolish as to handicap the bulk of the markets for coal and are going to be so stupid, by an unwise use of these powers, to jeopardise the whole market of 180,000,000 tons—I think that was the figure the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—in order to try to secure about 10,000,000 tons more at the outside in the European market. If the coalowners of this country are such bad business men and so stupid as that. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why he does not come over and help us to take the collieries out of the hands of such stupid people
Why is it that the German coalowners with similar powers, have not handicapped their coal exporting industry? Right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative benches have circulated leaflets in my Division in which they are telling the steel workers that the reason why the Ebbw Vale steel works are idle is because of competition from the Ruhr through steel produced by cartelised
coal. The German coalowners artificially fix the price of their coal and their steel makers have to pay that price. That is a kind of competition that we are unable to meet. Bight hon. and hon. Members opposite tell us that powers which have assisted the German steel masters in meeting successfully our competition, is going to ruin our own steel works. I submit that in this discussion we have not had a, proper examination of the possible uses to which these powers might be put. From the Liberal benches we are having simply an attack upon these powers because they offend some ancient Free Trade principle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] On this side we are not classical Free Traders. We believe in controlled exports and controlled imports.
It is impossible for the coalowners of this country, under the district schemes, to operate this Bill unless they get these powers. This levy, this pool, can be used not only for the purpose of facilitating the export of coal to Europe but also for easing the price of coal to the consumers of coal at home. There is nothing in this Clause to say that we are going merely to use this pool for facilitating the export of coal. As I read the Clause, the pool which will be accumulated can be used for the purpose of facilitating the sale of coal in other places besides Europe. I believe it to be perfectly true that productive units are so large in modern society that they cannot be expected to go on on the bare margins left by competition. There ought to exist between the producer of a basic product and the consumer what I would call something like a financial cushion. It ought to be possible for the producer to have the price of his product eased. Let me explain what I mean.
The right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade appointed a Committee in 1925 to inquire into the sale of coal. That Committee stated that their complaint against nationalisation or the cartel was that the price of coal would not be eased on a falling market but that the price of coal would tend to stiffen on a falling market. There is merit in that criticism, but if the price of coal is going to be eased on a falling market for the large basic industries consuming coal, how is the price going to be eased unless the productive units in the meantime are pro-
tected from the consequences of a sharp fluctuation in the price of coal? We look upon this national pool, this sales pool, as a means of easing the price of coal to industries which require to be eased. I hope that this part of the Bill will go through, because I am convinced that no injury at all can come from it unless the owners exercise this power in a very unwise way. If the powers are not ultimately used in a judicious way it will be because the coalowners are not themselves capable of using the powers in a proper way. I do beg hon. Members opposite not to take out of the Bill the only piece of elasticity which remains in it.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The hon. Member who has just spoken is such an effective orator and is such an appealing speaker, that if he has not in any degree convinced his audience it is merely because his case is such a bad one that not even he can win converts for it. The hon. Member said at the outset that it mattered little whether the statutory powers were given or not, and that it was admitted on the Conservative benches that if the powers were not given the owners could carry out similar measures by voluntary action. The hon. Member has missed the very essence of the case, for the statutory compulsion which will apply under this Bill all over the country entirely alters the whole situation. It is not merely that coalowners now are free to leave the scheme. The hon. Member says that if it were profitable to them they would not leave the scheme if it were merely voluntary. That is not the point.
Let me give an example. A Lancashire cotton manufacturer buys his coal now in Lancashire. There is no question of any levy on that coal in order to subsidise export coal. The coalowner would not desire a levy on it. But make this scheme one whole for the nation, and that Lancashire cotton manufacturer will be obliged to pay more for his coal to the Lancashire coalowner in order that the money might go into a pool to subsidise Yorkshire coal and Durham coal for export; and by Act of Parliament we shall have provided that the Lancashire millowner will have no possibility of escape. The hon. Member in his second argument contemplated with a very light heart the possibility of this country engaging in what should be in the nature
of a tariff war against competing coal-producing countries on the Continent. War is war, and if we take measures of that sort against this trade, do you think that they will not tax our dumped coal when it is avowedly subsidised by Act of Parliament?

An HON. MEMBER: What about dumped German wheat?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I know that hon. Members above the Gangway would deal with that. The Germans do stop dumped products. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade cannot go to Geneva to-morrow and try to persuade the countries of Europe to abandon all sorts of subsidies on exports when he is endeavouring to induce the House of Commons in his own country to do the very thing against which he has been so earnestly protesting. The hon. Member who spoke last quoted certain leaflets which he said had endeavoured to establish the fact that the Ruhr steel was able to undersell the steel of South Wales, that in Germany there is this system of cartelisation, this system of paying for dearer coal at home in order to subsidise to some degree the coal for abroad, and that it had not prevented German competition in steel being effective in this country.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I did not say that. What I did say was that the method of selling coal under the cartel in Germany is elastic and enabled them to assist their heavy industries.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The German coal industry in the Ruhr is so closely combined with the iron and steel works and coking ovens and is so well-organised that as a matter of fact the cost of coke to the German steelworks in the Ruhr is nil. That is the reason why in the hon. Member's constituency it is possible for the steelworks of Germany to undersell the local product. Let me express the hope that when the hon. Member next addresses the House he will have a case more worthy of his undoubted powers. This feature in the Bill which is being attacked to-day with serious arguments which have been unanswered so far because they are unanswerable, is in my judgment the very worst feature of a Bill which contains many objectionable provisions. On Second Reading I stated
with whatever emphasis was possible the objection that many of us feel to this particular proposal. I said then and I repeat now that it is a strange inverted kind of Protection. You are taxing the home manufacturer through an increased price of coal by a levy, in order to give subsidies and in order to enable the foreign manufacturer to get his fuel at a cheaper rate. There have been many proposals for many years all through the centuries in this House for assisting the British manufacturer to meet foreign competition. To-night is the first occasion when a Government comes to the British Parliament in order to induce it to pass a Measure which will assist the foreign manufacturer to meet British competition.
This is a tax imposed on coal under the authority of an Act of Parliament. No home manufacturer or domestic consumer will be able to escape it. Once this Clause is passed the mineowners of this country will be free to levy whatever it may be, so many millions a year, upon the consumers of this country. In order to give even so little as a shilling a ton it will be necessary to have a tax of about £3,000,000, which will be levied on the coal consumers of this country. Let us suppose that on 14th April, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to present his Budget, he were to end by saying: "I am sorry to have to inform the Committee that there is still a deficit of £3,000,000, and I propose to meet this by imposing a levy upon all the coal raised in this country and consumed in this country." The Committee would gasp with astonishment; they would say that such a proposal was utterly unacceptable. The miners' Members would be the first to denounce it. But there would at all events be this advantage in that proposal, that the £3,000,000 would go into the British Exchequer. It would be the means of meeting our expenditures here at home and it would be a relief to other taxpayers in preventing additional taxation in other directions. But where will the £3,000,000 go that the President of the Board of Trade is going to levy? Not into the British Exchequer, but it will be given with both hands to the foreign consumers of coal who are competing with our manufacturers.
I represent a cotton constituency, and at this moment the cotton industry is in the very depths of depression. The position is far worse than it was a year ago.
In my constituency and in other Lancashire constituencies unemployment is rife to an almost unprecedented extent. The cotton industry is cutting expenses to the bone in order to meet foreign competition. It has been compelled to reduce the already low wages of its operatives. Now there comes this proposal to make the manufacturers, by Act of Parliament, pay more than they need otherwise pay for the coal which they require, not in order to pay for the miners' shorter hours or to raise the miners' wages, but in order that a subsidy can be given to coal which is to be sold to foreigners who compete in our markets.
There has already been sufficient protest against this Bill on the ground that it is a dear Coal Bill. It is profoundly unpopular for that reason. If the Bill is passed and if this Clause remains in it—I sincerely hope it will not—the Government may go to the country and say, "No, you cannot call this a Dear Coal Bill. That is an unfair aspersion. There is one class of coal, at all events, which we have not made dearer, a class of coal which we have taken special steps to cheapen. It is a class of coal which you, the British consumers, do not use. It is the class of coal that your foreign competitors, who are engaged against you in the world market, do use. The Bill at all events has the beneficent effect that there is this one class of coal which is cheapened under its provisions."
There is one other point. The President of the Board of Trade has refused to make any distinction in favour of bunker coal. There is to be a levy on home produced coal and on the consumers who buy it, in order to subsidise coal shipped to Rotterdam or any other port in the world. Any British ship or foreign ship which goes to Hull or Leith or any other port in order to load coal for bunkers is not to have the advantage of the subsidy. Therefore coal, if it is shipped in Rotterdam, will be cheaper than precisely the same coal shipped at Newcastle or Hull, and at the cost of the British consumer. What must the inevitable result be? That every ship which is in a position to do so—ships can choose in these matters—will go to Rotterdam or to Antwerp or to some foreign port in order to get the advantage of the subsidy which the President the Board of Trade and this Bill will
have given to exported coal. Undoubtedly the effect on our home ports and their trade will be serious indeed.
I sincerely hope that the Committee will eliminate this provision from the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman cannot claim that it is essential to the Bill. It is an excrescence upon the Bill. It does not raise the larger considerations which, I agree, may, in the opinion of many, have been raised not unfairly with regard to some previous Amendments. If this special levy for this special purpose were taken out of Part I of the Bill, Part I would still remain, and the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Bill as a whole would not be affected. In these circumstances I strongly urge the Committee that on this occasion it should not hesitate to eliminate from the Bill a provision which is undoubtedly unpopular and deeply resented in the country—a provision the excision of which will be most warmly welcomed by our constituencies.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. STRACHEY: The main objection which has been raised to this Clause is that it is not a voluntary but a statutory levy. We have been told by hon. Members opposite that there is all the difference in the world between a voluntary levy such as that which has been proposed in the coal trade for many years past and the statutory levy which is proposed under this Bill. It is perfectly true that there is a great difference between the two things. The voluntary levy has been described to us earlier this afternoon by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) who is himself a coalowner, and he told us that the levy had been very successful in promoting our export trade in coal. May I point out that a certain number of coalowners have entirely escaped from that levy, although they have enjoyed the benefits of it without paying for it, with the result that they have cast the whole burden of the levy on the more loyal coalowners who adopted the Five Counties scheme.
The difference between a voluntary and a statutory levy is that the latter prevents shirking because the shirkers are compelled to come into the scheme. There is one other very definite difference, and it is that under a voluntary scheme like the Five Counties Scheme there is
absolutely no effective safeguards while under the compulsory scheme you have very extensive safeguards. Once the statutory scheme is laid down, you have a real control over the coalowners. Under voluntary schemes you put dangerous powers into the hands of coal-owners which may be used in a manner contrary to the public interest, whereas if those powers are established by Statute you get real control and real safeguards, and at the same time that you ensure the benefit of the scheme you remove the objections which may be made to it. There are many differences between voluntary and compulsory schemes, and I am strongly in favour of the latter.
The main argument which was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), as I understood it, was that by the proposals of this Clause we were leading the country into what has been described as a tariff war. [Interruption.] I wish hon. Members opposite would conduct their business in a lower tone, and then I should not have to speak up so loudly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen complained that we were leading this country into a tariff war, and he said that this Clause would produce all sorts of international complications and retaliations, because we were proposing to subsidise our export trade. Surely, we must consider this question in a sensible way. If anything is certain, it is that we have to undertake during the next few years negotiations with foreign coal producing countries, and are we going to enter those negotiations armed or unarmed? We have to deal with a permanent state of international competition, and I think that we are more likely to obtain better agreements if we have something to bargain with. I ask the Liberal party to look at this question in a practical way, and not in a spirit of wild idealism.
I will take a practical example which was given this afternoon. The Polish coal industry is using the weapon of export subsidies to drive us out of the Scandinavian markets. Under this Bill we shall establish a central authority which will be able to speak for the whole of the coal industry. If this Clause is passed, then the representatives of the
central authority will be able to go to Poland and ask the coalowners there to drop their subsidies, and our representatives will be more likely to succeed if it is known that we might introduce retaliatory subsidies in regard to our own trade. Those powers are of the utmost importance to the coal industry. They are only permissive powers, but the practical effect of them is likely to be to reduce the number of export subsidies and interferences with our export coal trade. I agree with the hon. Member who deplored all these interferences with the natural course of trade, but what is the practical way of removing those interferences? We could go to Geneva and inform the coalowners of Europe that, although we have powers to levy export subsidies, we should not use those powers if foreign countries would abate their export subsidies, and if foreign countries would do that, there would be no necessity for us to use those powers. Foreign countries have already got those powers; they are using those uneconomic methods, and we should have permissive powers to use those safeguards in cases where it was necessary.
We have to go into the markets of the world and into international negotiations, and the practical question is whether we should go into them armed with adequate powers to secure a decent bargain for the coal industry of this country. I should be the last person to advocate international competition in basic raw materials. The most terrible factor in the trade between this country and Europe has been the very keen international competition which has taken from us many of our markets. That international competition has lowered the standard of life of the miners both in this country and in Germany. I welcome the Clause we are discussing, because, if it is adopted, we shall have power to improve our international agreements. What the Clause which it is now sought to delete would do is to leave that authority in existence and its rejection would take that weapon out of our hands. If hon. Members opposite succeed in deleting this paragraph they will have the extreme satisfaction of having taken a weapon out of the hands of this country for bargaining in the international markets of the world. That would be an extraordinary thing for the party above
the Gangway to do. The only effect of the deletion of this paragraph would be to take out of the hands of this country a really practical weapon by which we can defend our interests in legitimate bargaining in the international affairs of Europe.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This is admittedly a controversial feature in the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will bear with a comparatively brief reply from me before we proceed to a Division. It is important, in a matter of this kind, that we should understand exactly what is involved, and should strip our minds of a great deal of what I am afraid has been said outside these walls, and, I would venture to add, of some misunderstanding. In the first place, there is nothing new in this proposal, because everyone who has been familiar with the working of the Five Counties scheme during the two years of its operation knows that it has been part of the operation of that scheme in Yorkshire, the Midlands, and adjacent territories, to impose a levy of 3d. per ton for the express purpose of facilitating the sale of export coal. We have always recognised that that area differs from other parts of the country, because, of the 100,000,000 tons of output in Yorkshire and the Midland territory covered by that scheme, only a small proportion is for export purposes. By far the greater part of it—90 per cent. or thereabouts—was for the inland market, and so, when a small levy of 3d. per ton was placed upon the whole of the tonnage raised—and, of course, that is the manner in which the levy is applied, that is to say, to the aggregate tonnage, and not to a selected part of that tonnage—it was possible to give a very large amount of assistance, at one point between 3s. and 4s. per ton, to export coal from that district.
I beg the Committee to remember that that is not, and in the nature of things could not be, the proposal that is before us in this case, because under this Clause power is taken, or rather, permission is given to owners, to impose a levy on all tonnage raised, that is to say, on the aggregate tonnage raised in this country, and to use the proceeds of that levy to facilitate the sale of any class of coal. Whatever the levy might be, it is of course inconceivable that, unless it were a very high and probably impossible levy, the
assistance to the export trade could reach the amount that was given under the Five Counties Scheme, and in all probability a contribution of that amount would not be necessary, because, in the circumstances as they are now developing, it should be easier to some extent in the future to develop our export market for coal.
It is perfectly true that the Five Counties Scheme rests on a voluntary basis, but it covers by far the greater part of the output in that part of the country. It has been supported by the great majority of owners in the nine counties in which it now operates, and no hon. Member of the House, whatever view he takes of this proposal in the Bill, will deny that it has been the means of stimulating very greatly the export trade from those nine counties, and of avoiding a marked drop in prices which in other circumstances would probably have been experienced. Therefore, on the broad facts of such experience as there is in this country of the working of a plan of this kind on voluntary lines, additional export trade has been obtained, and in an earlier part of the Debate I gave figures which showed that, during the two years' operation of the Five Counties Scheme in connection with the export trade, the exports have mounted up from about 2,300,000 tons before the institution of the scheme to at least 6,500,000 tons after the scheme had had a fair trial. Let the Committee next approach the precise proposal of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman who was my predecessor at the Board of Trade used, from beginning to end of his speech, the word "property." I am unable to trace any property that is taken from an individual under this proposal, nor can I find, hard as I have tried, the element of compulsion which the right hon. Gentleman and other speakers have sought to import into this proposal.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What is an involuntary levy but compulsion?

Mr. GRAHAM: Let us examine what is proposed. This part of the Bill proposes that the central scheme may provide—it does not say that it shall provide, but only that it may provide—for a levy of this kind collected from the districts for the purpose of facilitating the sale of export coal. Let me observe
in passing that, if this rested purely with the owners, there might disappear, permanently so far as I know, any chance of easing the price of coal, or lowering the price of coal, not only in the export trade, but also to the iron and steel industry and to other industries in this country which may be depressed. It would, in fact, wipe away those benefits which formed a very large part of the arguments used by hon. Members opposite when they were seeking to exclude those industries from the general scheme of the quota provisions. That possibility of assistance would disappear altogether, even on the permissive basis so far as the Bill is concerned, and it would then rest upon anything which might be done by the owners in any district under this Measure. Let us understand what is being done. I can only say that this is a matter which calls for very serious discussion and consideration, and it may be that this is one of the parts of the Bill which we are only able to present on a balance of argument as to what it is proposed to do. But having considered the arguments very carefully we have come to the conclusion that there is a balance in favour of this provision.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) quite correctly says that with the quota scheme. and the output regulations, and the organisation of the owners in the various districts, these provisions are unnecessary additions. In other words, he describes them as excrescences on that part of the Bill—as something that is unnecessary—and it may be that up to a point that criticism may be justified; but I want to press this argument, and it seems to me to be very important. If you have the owners organised as they will be, that is to say, if every pit producing coal in every district is included—if the owners decide to institute a scheme of this kind—it is perfectly true that, if we do not give them any kind of statutory powers, as would be the case if the scheme is on a purely permissive basis, you can still institute a scheme of that kind. But, as my hon. Friend has just pointed out, there would then be no right, so far as I know, on the part of the Board of Trade to interfere, because it would not be a part of the scheme specified in the Bill. Therefore, it would be
something done by the industry, as numerous things will be done by this industry even after this large amount of regulation is introduced.
Accordingly, I submit to the Committee that it is vital, if we admit chat it may be done by the owners themselves, to retain some measure of specification in the Act of Parliament and some measure of control by the Board of Trade after the Act is passed. Hon Members may suggest that that is quite true, but that you should not give the owners power to bring in a minority, and they should only proceed if they got agreement, among the districts. But even that argument has its answer, because all the owners, if Part I of the Bill stands, will be within the scheme, and I suggest that, as a matter of ordinary economic fact, it would be very difficult for any minority to remain outside if majority decisions were to rule. Even if there were no statutory reference to it at all, they would still get within the scheme as in the case of the Five Counties Scheme, and, so far as I know, not a single word could be said either from the standpoint of the House of Commons or through the Board of Trade. That is the plain issue before the Committee, and, of course, I am bound to put that as one of the arguments which have influenced me to a very large extent in retaining this part of the Measure.
Let me approach another difficulty which has been very strongly stressed. Hon. Members say that this amounts to a subsidy to certain classes of foreign competitors. It all depends upon what we mean by "subsidy," which I quite agree is a very misleading term. When my right hon. Friend opposite was at the Board of Trade and was defending the de-rating scheme as applied to coal—and I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen that there is not a very close parallel in this connection—he used precisely the same arguments as have been used in this Debate. He pointed out what was the destination of the export coal, and he denied that it was really going to iron and steel undertakings on the Continent or to other undertakings which were going to compete with us for business. Before I reply on this point, may I remind the Committee of what I have just said about easing the price to the consumer? In my judgment, and it is the whole tenor of the right
hon. Gentleman's remarks, this industry would commit suicide unless it gave the very best prices that it could to the iron and steel and other depressed industries. But how is it going to give those best prices unless it is able to charge differential prices to different classes of demand? That is really the point that is before the Committee.
Referring to the de-rating scheme and the apparent subsidy to foreign competitors, my right hon. Friend pointed out—and I accept the facts as he stated them, because he was responsible for the same Department as I am, and the material does not change—that in the case of the iron and steel industry the overwhelming part of that Continental iron and steel production does not rely upon coal from this country at all. If I may say so, it has got more sense. It has linked up a very great deal of its coal production with its iron and steel plants, and thus it has a supply of coal at its doors. British export coal goes to shipping and it goes to an appreciable extent to public utilities and foreign railways. I do not think that there is a likelihood of a real conflict with iron and steel or with depressed industries seeing that it is not that class of demand on the Continent to which in practice the great bulk of export coal is going at present. I do not attach any more importance than the right hon. Gentleman did a year or two ago when he was defending the de-rating proposals to the suggestion that our foreign competitors will benefit from any assistance provided by the levy. What is the other point about the export trade? If we were going to sell coal at less than the cost of production, if we were going to give coal away on the Continent, we should be false to every principle in this Bill. It is the precise object of the Bill to try to stop the sale of coal below the cost of production, or at a loss, and that has always been part of our case in this connection. Although I do not attach myself for a moment to any permanent retention of these artificial devices which I accept are open to considerable argument, the fact remains that this kind of assistance is being given to a large extent in Germany and that it may still be done voluntarily by the owners in this country. No reference to compulsion is made in the Bill. It is only done per-
massively and it is just as well that we should keep it under our control, or at least under some form of public intervention, if that intervention is required. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) paid a very kindly tribute to my speech in the Assembly of the League of Nations last year. I do not depart from a single word that I said then. I am just as much opposed to these devices as any Member of the House, and I do not believe in the last resort and sometimes in the early resort they lead to any useful result. But I am bound to take the facts as they are and the facts are that this is being done in Germany and other countries and probably will be done here and I think it is right that the Government should have some say until these artificial devices pass away as I hope they will pass away when international agreement can be established.
There is one final overriding consideration. We must increase the export of coal so far as these static limits will allow. It is not proposed to put coal on the European market at a loss. It is proposed to put coal on the European market at the European price. Unfortunately experience proves that we cannot offer that coal at that price unless in some cases there is a device of this kind. It may be that it will never be used or will be used very sparingly, but it should be available if required. Accordingly, I ask the Committee are you going to lose or run the risk of losing that class of European demand because you put it beyond the reach of our coal trade?
There is one other influence of the stimulus or the encouragement of the sale of coal in Europe at the European price which is of the very greatest importance. To the extent that we can export coal at an economic level we keep it off the home market in weakening competition or with a tendency to depress the home price level. Of course, there will still be a problem of that sort even after the Bill has passed into law although it will be very greatly limited compared with the position at the present time. For all these reasons I have reached the conclusion that this purely permissive provision in the Bill should remain, in order that there should not be put beyond the reach of the Board of Trade and the
Government the right to regulate this or intervene in it if in their judgment there is any need. If this Clause is defeated the power to assist the iron and steel industry disappears, the power to exercise that supervision disappears and considering all these facts it is in

every way advisable that this Clause should remain.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 282.

Division No. 219.]
AYES.
[8.33 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gill, T. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gillett, George M.
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gossling, A. G.
McElwee, A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gould, F.
McEntee, V. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)
Mackinder, W.


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McKinlay, A.


Angell, Norman
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacLaren, Andrew


Arnott, John
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
McShane, John James


Ayles, Walter
Grundy, Thomas W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mansfield, W.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, G. H Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marcus, M.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Markham, S. F.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Harbison, T. J.
Marley, J.


Bellamy, Albert
Hardie, George D.
Marshall, Fred


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mathers, George


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Matters, L. W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Haycock, A. W.
Melville, Sir James


Benson, G.
Hayday, Arthur
Messer, Fred


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hayes, John Henry
Middleton, G.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mills, J. E.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Milner, J.


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Montague, Frederick


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Herriotts, J.
Morley, Ralph


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Bromley, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham. N.)


Brooke, W.
Hoffman, P. C.
Mort, D. L.


Brothers, M.
Hollins, A.
Moses, J. J. H.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hopkin, Daniel
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Horrabin, J. F.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muff, G.


Buchanan, G.
Isaacs, George
Muggeridge, H. T.


Burgess, F. G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Murnin, Hugh


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Naylor, T. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Johnston, Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oldfield, J. R.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Palin, John Henry


Charleton. H. C.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Palmer, E. T.


Chater, Daniel
Kelly, W. T.
Perry, S. F.


Church, Major A. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Clarke, J. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Cluse, W. S.
Kinley, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Knight, Holford
Pole, Major D. G.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lang, Gordon
Potts, John S.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Price, M. P.


Cove, William G.
Lathan, G.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Daggar, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Raynes, W. R.


Dallas, George
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Richards, R.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Day, Harry
Lawson, John James
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ritson, J.


Devlin, Joseph
Leach, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Dukes, C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Romeril, H. G.


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Ede, James Chuter
Lees, J.
Rowson, Guy


Edmunds, J. E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lindley, Fred W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sanders, W. S.


Egan, W. H.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sandham, E.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Freeman, Peter
Longden, F.
Scrymgeour, E.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Scurr, John


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lowth, Thomas
Sexton, James


Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Sherwood, G. H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Shield, George William
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Strauss, G. R.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Shillaker, J. F.
Sullivan, J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Shinwell, E.
Sutton, J. E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Simmons, C. J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
West, F. R.


Sinkinson, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Sitch, Charles H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Tillett, Ben
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Toole, Joseph
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Tout, W. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Townend, A. E.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Turner, B.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Snell, Harry
Vaughan, D. J.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Viant, S. P.
Wise, E. F.


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Walker, J.
Wright, W. (Ruthergien)


Sorensen, R.
Wallace, H. W.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Wallhead, Richard C.



Stephen, Campbell
Watkins, F. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Ainsworth, Lieut-Col. Charles
Colman, N. C. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Albery, Irving James
Colville, Major D. J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l., W.)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Allen, W. E. O. (Belfast, W.)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Aske, Sir Robert
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Astor, Viscountess
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hammersley, S. S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hanbury, C.


Atkinson, C.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Baillie-Hamilton. Hon. Charles W.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Harbord, A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hartington, Marquess of


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson, Major-General Sir H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Balniel, Lord
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Beaumont, M. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Berry, Sir George
Dixey, A. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Eden, Captain Anthony
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Birkett, W. Norman
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Elmley, Viscount
Hurd, Percy A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
England, Colonel A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Boyce, H. L.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Iveagh, Countess of


Bracken, B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brass, Captain Sir William
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Briscoe, Richard George
Ferguson, Sir John
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Fermoy, Lord
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fielden, E. B.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Buchan, John
Foot, Isaac
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ford, Sir P. J.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Butler, R. A.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Carver, Major W. H.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Glassey, A. E.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Rower, Sir Robert
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grace, John
Long, Major Eric


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lymington, Viscount


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Granville, E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Chapman, Sir S.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Christie, J. A.
Gray, Milner
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macquisten, F. A.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mac Robert. Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)




Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Pybus, Percy John
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Ramsbotham, H.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Marjoribanks, E. C.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Meller, R. J.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Remer, John R.
Thomson, Sir F.


Millar, J. D.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Tinne, J. A.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mond, Hon. Henry
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Train, J.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Muirhead, A. J.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wardlaw-Milne. J. S.


Nathan, Major H. L.
Salmon, Major I.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrst'ld)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wells, Sydney R.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
White, H. G.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


O'Neill, Sir H.
Scott, James
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Simms, Major-General J.
Withers, Sir John James


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Peake, Capt. Osbert
Skelton, A. N.
Womersley, W. J.


Penny, Sir George
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Pliditch, Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Somerset, Thomas
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Purbrick, R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Commander Sir B. Eyres Monsell




and Major Sir George Hennessy.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. RUNCIMAN:

In page 5, line 8, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that no moneys so raised shall be applied to facilitate the sale of any coal to be exported at a less price than is charged for such class of coal for bunkering ships.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: Mr. Runciman!

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not move, Sir. It is now unnecessary.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to proceed with the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Really. I am amazed at the question. The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity two days from now to move a Vote of Censure. I shall be very glad to accommodate him by suggesting to him that he should make his Vote of Censure general, and then we will accept the decision. So far as this Division is concerned, it was on an optional provision. No essential change is made in the Clause, and the Government propose to ask the Committee to go on with its work.

Mr. SMITHERS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, to leave out paragraph (b). It falls to my lot after we have just won the Division on the Amendment to delete paragraph (a) of this Clause to move that paragraph (b) be deleted. After the amazing reply of the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I should have thought that the President of the Board of Trade would have asked leave to report Progress and consider the position in regard to the future stages of the Bill. Apparently, the skin of hon. Members opposite is so thick that they intend to take no notice of that defeat.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will kindly deal with the Amendment before the Committee, we shall make greater progress.

Mr. SMITHERS: The Clause which the Committee is now considering proposes to set up a central scheme, and the essence of the proposal is that it shall be run by the owners. The President of the Board of Trade has told us on more than one occasion that he has done all he can to get the owners to work with him. The central council which is to be run by the owners is to do certain things, for which statutory authority will be given but,
according to paragraph (b) the whole thing is to be taken out of the hands of the central council. Under this provision the President of the Board of Trade reserves to himself the right over:
such matters as appear to the Board of Trade to be incidental to, or consequential on, the foregoing provisions of this Section or to ho necessary for giving effect to those provisions.
The whole provisions of this Clause are summed up in this paragraph (b). The Sub-section commences in this way:
The central scheme may provide.
I am certain that the Government would have liked to have put in the word "shall." I take it to be the policy of the Government that the mining industry shall be nationalised. The President of the Board of Trade has said quite frankly and fairly that the Government is not in a position to bring in a great revolutionary change of that character because they are a minority Government. People connected with the technical working of the coal industry, who see more of the ultimate working of this scheme than we in this House, assure me that if this Bill passes—

Mr. KELLY: On a point or Order. May I ask if we are discussing the whole Bill or this Amendment? All the references of the hon. Member have been to the Bill; not one word of explanation yet of the Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is moving to delete paragraph (b) of Sub-section (3), and he is trying to make out a case against the words contained in this Clause. So far he appears to be in order.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: On that point of Order. I presume that anything which is incidental to the central scheme would be in order on this Amendment? The words in the paragraph "consequential on the foregoing provisions of this section" would enable my hon. Friend to discuss one or two points mentioned previously in the Clause; and that is what he really is doing. I do not wish to take it further because the words "the foregoing provisions of this section" on your Ruling enables my hon. Friend to say something on the matters with which he is dealing.

Mr. SMITHERS: I regret that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has so little intelligence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I mean it in the most friendly spirit—or my voice does not carry across the Floor of the House, that he has not understood my point. I am trying to point out that by bringing in the Board of Trade—perhaps the hon. Member has not read the Sub-section.

Mr. KELLY: I have read it.

Mr. SMITHERS: Let me read it to the hon. Member:
The central scheme may provide—
(b) for such matters as appear to the Board of Trade to be incidental to, or consequential on, the foregoing provisions of this Section or to be necessary for giving effect to those provisions.
When I was so courteously interrupted by the hon. Member for Rochdale I was trying to point out that certain of my friends connected with the coal trade who are technical experts do see, in spite of the impotence of the Government to give effect to nationalisation as their policy, many seeds in this Bill which are a step towards nationalisation. I contend that this paragraph (b) is a step in that direction and that is why I want it deleted.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss the question of nationalisation. The Title of the Bill is
A Bill to provide for regulating and facilitating the production, supply and sale of coal by owners of coal mines.
Obviously that rules out the question of nationalisation.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: As paragraph (a) has come out the Sub-section will now read as follows:
The central scheme may provide
(b) for such matters as appear to the Board of Trade to be incidental to or consequential on the foregoing provisions.
As the "foregoing provisions "no longer exist, having been struck out by the vote of the Committee, is it in order to discuss this Amendment at all?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) can move that paragraph (b) should be struck out. The provisions referred to have not been struck out, but only paragraph (a).

Mr. SMITHERS: I will not pursue the question of nationalisation, but I would remind the Committee that this Clause deals with the regulating and working of the central scheme by a central council of owners. The "foregoing provisions" referred to here lay down certain regulations and conditions under which the owners shall work the scheme, and in this paragraph (b) the Board of Trade seek the power to interfere with those regulations. All along I have been against anything in the way of compulsion. The owners may get together and devise some scheme to mitigate the harm which, I am sure, the Bill will do to the country, but I do not want any interference with the owners' powers by the Board of Trade in this matter, even though the provision should contain the word "may." It is for that reason and to avoid, as far as possible, political influence "butting into" the consideration of a very technical question that I move the Amendment which will have the effect of preventing the Board of Trade interfering with this central council of owners.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As the Bill now stands, it reads in a very curious way:
The central scheme may provide
(b) for such matters,
etc. Of course that is nothing extraordinary under this Government because one does not expect anything relevant from them, but this Sub-section now provides that the central scheme may provide for certain matters. I do not know that I should be in order in discussing the central scheme, but you, Mr. Dunnico, have ruled that we shall be in order in discussing matters relating to the production, sale and supply of coal.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What I ruled was that the Bill contained no reference to nationalisation, and that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers), in moving his Amendment, could not discuss nationalisation. I think it is perfectly obvious that we cannot allow, on this Amendment, a discussion covering matters already decided by the Committee.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think, however, that on the Amendment before us we shall be able to discuss "such matters as appear to the Board of Trade to be in-
cidental to" these provisions. We are in a most difficult position. I desire to ask the representative of the Board of Trade what is meant by this paragraph (b) at the present time, but we have no representative of the Board of Trade here at the moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General is in his place and he is probably acting temporarily and doing his best to represent the Board of Trade. I wish to ask him one or two questions on this matter, although if he prefers it, or if it is more in order to do so, I shall address my questions to the Secretary to the Mines Department. I wish to know, in the first place, what is meant by the words "matters incidental to the foregoing provisions." There has been no explanation from the Secretary to the Mines Department or the Board of Trade or the Law Officers as to the particular provisions which are referred to here. There are provisions in the earlier part of the Bill with which we have already dealt, but when we were dealing with those provisions it was not realised that there would be this gap in Clause 2 of the Bill. Then there is the word "provisions" itself. Does that apply to provisions in connection with all the dealings of the coal trade—the selling and buying and export of coal, and all the other matters connected with the trade. We are entitled to information on these points at this particularly difficult moment when I find that I am addressing myself to a Subsection of the Bill which I have not had time to go into yet. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Well, I wish to be enlightened by hon. Members opposite, of all sections, as to what they think are "the matters incidental to" these provisions.
There is also the word "consequential." What sort of consequences does the Secretary to the Mines Department imagine will follow from these provisions? I can imagine at this moment all kinds of consequences, some of them most disastrous to hon. Gentlemen opposite; consequences which might lead to a complete reversal—and a reversal for the better—of the position in the House of Commons. But I should not be in order in referring to those consequences and I only point out that these words "consequential on the foregoing provisions" raise a point
which it is most difficult to discuss at this time. "The foregoing provisions," as far as I understand it, refer to "The central scheme may provide." There is no other foregoing provision, and therefore the only thing we are in order in discussing under this Sub-section is the central scheme. As far as "the foregoing pro visions of this section" are concerned, I want to know what particular changes it is now proposed to bring in so as to join up these two parts of the Bill. You can not have a gap in the Bill—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know what that has to do with the Amendment before us. [Interruption.] The hon. Member will allow me to say what is in order and what is not.

Mr. WILLIAMS: All I was endeavouring to point out, as briefly as possible under the circumstances, is that the words "the foregoing provisions of this Section" refer obviously to the only foregoing provision which now exists, and that is "The central scheme may provide." My trouble is that it is almost impossible to discuss the position. Nothing is further from my mind than to get out of order, but I was pointing out that we are in a difficult position in discussing a central scheme which, in the main, refers to a previous part of the Bill, when you have not that natural sequence which we look to in following a Bill of this kind. In the last line of the Sub-section we have the word "provisions" in the plural, and it is becoming increasingly difficult. The first line of the Sub-section, however, says, "The central scheme may provide," and I do not see how you can connect the singular and the plural, and I would like to know what the Government propose to do about it. It is obvious that the Government have got to reorganise this Subsection. The Government are in a difficult position, for they have got this thing into such a state of chaos, that I cannot see how they can hope under any circumstances to make this Sub-section of value to the Bill.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has put various questions, but speaking for myself and for all of us, I wish that all questions addressed to us were as easy to answer as those which he has put. I was
inclined to think that, after the many speeches which he has made, he did not appreciate the distinction between a Section and a Sub-section. I was at one time under the impression that he under stood the words "the foregoing provision of this Section" as though they were the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section. He will realise that it is impossible that he could have thought such a thing, be cause that would have displayed a gap in his own intelligence. I am sure that no such gap exists in his appreciation of such a point as this—

Mr. WILLIAMS: I agree that I made a small technical slip. It was done for one reason, for it would have meant going back too far and wasting the time of the House to have corrected it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sure that the last thing which the hon. Member wants to do is to waste time. Let us see what this Amendment provides. Paragraph (b) of Sub-section 3 refers to "the foregoing provisions of this Section." We turn to Section 3, and we notice what the foregoing provisions are If the hon. Member looks at Sub-section (2) of Section 3, we shall agree that Subsection (2) is part of Section 3 and we find what the central scheme is to provide.

Commodore DOUGLAS KING: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really mean Section 3? He says Sub-section (2) of Section 3, but we are on Clause 2 at the present moment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am much obliged; I am talking about Sub-Section (2) of Clause 2. Lawyers generally call it "Section," but in this House we call it "Clause." The "foregoing provisions of this Section" refer to the Subsection on page 3 which has the figure 2 against it in brackets. That Sub-section, which has (2) against it, sets out under various letters from (a) to (i) the various things which the central scheme is to provide. The effect of paragraph (b) of Subsection (3) is this: that in addition to providing for the things subsequently enumerated, there may be other matters not subsequently enumerated but which matters are at the same time either incidental to or consequential upon or necessary to give effect to those provisions which are provided, and which the
Committee have passed. Let me give an illustration. The hon. Member will see for instance, under letter (f) on page 4, that the scheme has to provide for the appointment of trustees, but he will observe that it does not expressly provide for the removal of trustees. I take it that, if a trustee were sent to prison, there would probably have to be provisions in the scheme to have somebody to act in his place, and for that trustee to be removed. Unless you get some latitude, not a large measure of latitude, but such latitude as you get in the words "incidental to or consequential on," you find yourself in the position that you might not be able to deal with the removal of the trustee who obviously ought to be removed.
If you go through these various paragraphs you will find there are all sorts of matters which are not particularly provided for, because the scheme is merely set out on broad lines and the details have to be filled in. The Committee having passed the various paragraphs enumerated down to (i) it is really essential to have some degree of latitude. You cannot put into your schemes under Subsection (3, b) wholly new matters. If you want to put in new matters at all, you must do that under the next Sub-section, Sub-section (4). All that you are doing under Sub-section (3, b) is merely putting in such matters as are
incidental to or consequential on.
I do not for one moment pretend that I appreciate the difference between the two, but I do know that the two words are almost always used. Lawyers have a bad habit of using two words where one will do. I am not prepared to say that there is no distinction, because I have not looked it up in the legal dictionary, but I am not sure what it is. This is really the corollary of passing the paragraphs down to (i) in Sub-section (2). Otherwise, you might find yourself in difficulties, because you have not provided for some small thing, and unless you have in the Clause the words
incidental to or consequential on the foregoing provisions of this Section or to be necessary for giving effect to those provisions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Would those words in any way enable them to make levies?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The power of making levies, the hon. Member will agree with me, could not, be necessary for giving effect to any of the provisions enumerated down to paragraph (i) in Sub-section (2), but if the power to make levies is inherent in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (3) then, of course, this gives you a power which is incidental to and consequential on that.

Mr. REID: Would the learned Attorney-General look at paragraph (e) in Subsection (2)?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is the paragraph which speaks of
the establishment of a central fund, for the administration and control of the fund (subject to the provisions of the central scheme) by the council, for the payment into the fund of any money received by the council under the provisions of that scheme, and for the payment out of the fund of the expenses of the council and any money payable by the council under the provisions of that scheme.
All I say about that is this: If the power to make levies is there, well and good. This paragraph (b) of Sub-section (3) merely gives us an extension which is incidental to or consequential on it, but if the power is not in paragraph (e), then you cannot get a wholly new power merely by saying you have powers which are incidental to such powers as are already given. The question of levies or no levies depends upon paragraph (e) and not upon this Sub-section (3, b), which is merely put in to ensure that we have covered the small consequential points in regard to which there might otherwise be some little difficulty.

Commodore KING: The learned Attorney-General has dealt with the points which he considers to be incidental to or consequential on this, but one of the points of criticism which I have always wished to make against this particular paragraph concerns the words:
as appear to the Board of Trade to be,
because he will agree that the question whether it is incidental to or consequential on must be a question of fact. I cannot see why it should speak of such matters "as appear to the Board of Trade" to be incidental to. That throws a much wider discretion on the Board of Trade. When I first read it I objected to so much discretion being given to the Board of Trade on what appears to me to
be a question of fact. The learned Attorney-General, in dealing with this matter, kindly gave us an example of what he thought would he incidental to a certain paragraph, and he quoted paragraph (f) of Sub-section (2). That deals with the appointment of trustees. As soon as that criticism was made one of the first things that came to his mind when he glanced down the list and saw the reference to the appointment of trustees was that there might be a probable necessity to remove trustees. That, I claim, shows very bad draftsmanship in the Bill. We are called upon to pass this Bill, which we are trying to improve in any way we can, and here we have the Attorney-General, by just glancing down this list, noting at once a point which he considers is necessary for the working of the Bill, but which has to be left to the discretion of the Board of Trade, and can only be dealt with if and when it appears to the Board of Trade to be necessary or incidental to—

Mr. TINKER: Are we taking both the Amendments together? The next Amendment is dealing with the same point.

Commodore KING: I am taking the point which the Attorney-General raised. He gave us as an example paragraph (f) of Sub-section (2) dealing with appointment of trustees. I will take another one which was raised with him, and which has to do with levies. Paragraph (d) deals with the collection by council from the executive boards for the several districts of levies imposed upon them in proportion to output.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is merely for defraying the expenses of the council. Do not let us confuse the term. It is nothing like the levy which we were discussing in the last Amendment.

Commodore KING: If the Attorney-General assures me as to that, I quite agree with him—

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is so.

Commodore KING: I realise the difference, but why use the word "levies" there if levies is not meant? I am not suggesting that it is the same kind of levy as it was proposed to impose to facilitate the sale of coal, but there is a question of levies being imposed
under one of these paragraphs. I submit that it is most undesirable that the Bill should be so loosely drafted that the Attorney-General thinks it necessary to have such a paragraph as this to allow the Board of Trade to say what is going to be incidental to or consequential on the remaining part of the Clause. The Prime Minister told us only a short while ago that the dropping of paragraph (a) was of little consequence, because it was only permissive. If he thinks the dropping of a permissive paragraph is of so little importance as not to affect the passage of the Bill, I suggest to the Attorney-General that he might as well drop this second permissive paragraph, as it can have no possible effect on the Bill, and we certainly object very strongly to its remaining. The Attorney-General should do the graceful act and withdraw this particular paragraph.

Mr. REID: May I suggest to the Attorney-General that we could omit these words; they are of no use? I will recall to the memory of the Attorney-General an example with which he is very familiar. Take the case of the memorandum of association of a company. In the opinion of many great lawyers, a bad habit has grown up in the last 20 or 30 years of first of all putting into the memorandum of association of a company the objects for which the company is really established, and then sticking into it every incidental or consequential object which the draftsman can think of. Time and time again the Courts have held that that was quite unnecessary; that when a company is given power, or takes power, to carry on a certain business, that it has by implication powers incidental to the business which it takes power to carry on. The whole sting of this paragraph is in the words "as appear to the Board of Trade." If those words are left out, the paragraph is unnecessary. If they are left in, we are giving power to the Board of Trade to legislate. The Attorney-General has not suggested that the Board of Trade want those powers. I suggest that, if they were left out, the rest of the paragraph would be unnecessary and that therefore it would be better to leave them out. It cannot be suggested for a moment that, if a scheme contained anything incidental to the earlier part of the Clause, any question could be raised as to its legality.

Captain HUDSON: I should like, first of all, to assure you that the remark to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) was for himself alone and was not meant in defiance of the Chair. I was drawing attention to the particular Sub-section which deals with levies and which had previously been dealt with and was simply making a suggestion to him about it. It was not meant in defiance of the Chair.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I accept that explanation. The hon. Member was dealing, not with the Clause, but with a paragraph of the Bill which we had just deleted, and therefore had no bearing on the Amendment.

Captain HUDSON: I entirely agree with your Ruling. I was only trying to point out that it would be much better left out like the previous paragraph. I meant no discourtesy, because no one realises more than myself the difficulties of the Chair, and I should be the last person to defy the Chair. As regards this particular paragraph, I feel it would be very much better left out like the previous paragraph. It bears on what goes before it and for that reason the Attorney-General is not quite right when he says that it is an ordinary paragraph put into every Bill. In this House, in recent years especially, we have objected again and again to the practice in legislation of giving power to a Department such as the Board of Trade by putting in a Sub-section of this kind saying that, if the Bill does not work in any way, the Board of Trade shall have the power to make the necessary legislation to make it work. It is giving power to bureaucracy and taking it away from the House of Commons. That is a bad thing, and a paragraph of this kind should be left out although similar provisions have been inserted in other Bills and in Bills not sponsored by this Government. It

would make for much better legislation if we left out such provisions. The words "such matters as appear to the Board of Trade" are much too wide a phrase to be left in, and it would be better if the Attorney-General would agree to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection (3) altogether and see that the Bill shall be so drawn that such words as these need not appear.

Mr. ATKINSON: I should like to add my protest against this provision. While the words "as appear to the Board of Trade" remain, no Court in the country would have power to rule out anything the Board of Trade chose to do under this Clause. The Court would merely say that, it appearing to the Board of Trade that such matters were consequential on the central scheme, they might deal with any of those matters. Take paragraph (a): Suppose that the Board of Trade said, "It appears to us to be necessary and consequential to give effect to the scheme of the Bill to make these levies," the Court would have no power to rule them out of order. The Attorney-General's speech was directed to supporting the words "incidental to or consequential on," but that may easily be achieved by leaving out the words "as appear to the Board of Trade," and leaving the rest in. As it is, the Board of Trade is given a free hand, and there is no power to cut down the exercise of their powers in any way whatever. I do not agree that it is a very common Clause. I agree that it is as far as "incidental to or consequential on" is concerned, but I cannot agree that it is usual to give power to the Board of Trade without the Courts having any jurisdiction whatever to pronounce upon the question of validity.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 310; Noes, 212.

Division No. 220.]
AYES.
[9.33 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Ayles, Walter
Benson, G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Barnes, Alfred John
Birkett, W. Norman


Alpass, J. H.
Batey, Joseph
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret


Ammon, Charles George
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Bowen, J. W.


Angell, Norman
Bellamy, Albert
Broad, Francis Alfred


Arnott, John
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brockway, A. Fenner


Aske, Sir Robert
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Bromfield, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Bromley, J.


Brooke, W.
Hoffman, P. C.
Naylor, T. E.


Brothers, M.
Hopkin, Daniel
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Oldfield, J. R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Horrabin, J. F.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Buchanan, G.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Burgess, F. G.
Isaacs, George
Palin, John Henry


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Paling, Wilfrid


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palmer, E. T.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Johnston, Thomas
Perry, S. F.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pole, Major D. G.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Chater, Daniel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Price, M. P.


Church, Major A. G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pybus, Percy John


Clarke, J. S.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, Thomas
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Raynes, W. R.


Compton, Joseph
Kinley, J.
Richards, R.


Cove, William G.
Knight, Holford
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Daggar, George
Lang, Gordon
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Dallas, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dalton, Hugh
Lathan, G.
Ritson, J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Romerll, H. G.


Day, Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rowson, Guy


Devlin, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dukes, C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Ede, James Chuter
Lees, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sandham, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lindley, Fred W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Scott, James


Egan, W. H.
Logan, David Gilbert
Scrymgeour, E.


Elmley, Viscount
Longbottom, A. W.
Scurr, John


England, Colonel A.
Longden, F.
Sexton, James


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univor.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Foot, Isaac
Lowth, Thomas
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lunn, William
Sherwood, G. H.


Freeman, Peter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shield, George William


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shillaker, J. F.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McElwee, A.
Shinwell, E.


Gibbins, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mackinder, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Gill, T. H.
McKinlay, A.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Sinkinson, George


Glassey, A. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mansfield, W.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Granville, E.
March, S.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gray, Milner
Marcus, M.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Markham, S. F.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Marley, J.
Snell, Harry


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marshall, Fred
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Groves, Thomas E.
Mathers, George
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Matters, L. W.
Sorensen, R.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Melville, Sir James
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Messer, Fred
Stephen, Campbell


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Middleton, G.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Millar, J. D.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mills, J. E.
Strauss, G. R.


Harbison, T. J.
Milner, J.
Sullivan, J.


Harbord, A.
Montague, Frederick
Sutton, J. E.


Hardie, George D.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morley, Ralph
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hayday, Arthur
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tillett, Ben


Hayes, John Henry
Mort, D. L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Moses, J. J. H.
Toole, Joseph


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Tout, W. J.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Townend, A. E.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muff, G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Herriotts, J.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Turner, B.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Murnin, Hugn
Vaughan, D. J.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Viant, S. P.




Walker, J.
West, F. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Wallace, H. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Wallhead, Richard C.
White, H. G.
Wise, E. F.


Watkins, F. C.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Wright, W. (Ruthergien)


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)



Welsh, James (Paisley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. William Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ford, Sir P. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Penny, Sir George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Astor, Viscountess
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Atholl, Duchess of
Gower, Sir Robert
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Atkinson, C.
Grace, John
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Balniel, Lord
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Remer, John R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Beaumont, M. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Berry, Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hanbury, C.
Salmon, Major I.


Boyce, H. L.
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bracken, B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Haslam, Henry C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l d'., Hexham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Buchan, John
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Simms, Major-General J.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, R. A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n S Kinc'dine, C.)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerset, Thomas


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chapman, Sir S.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Stanley, Mat. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Christie, J. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Sir F.


Colman, N. C. D.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tinne, J., A.


Colville, Major D. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Train, J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lleweilln, Major J. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lymington, Viscount
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Withers, Sir John James


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Meller, R. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Eden, Captain Anthony
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morden, Col. W. Grant



Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fermoy, Lord
Muirhead, A. J.
Captain Margesson and Marquess of Titchfield.


Fielden, E. B.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)



Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment that I call is one standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) and other hon. Members—in page 5, line 26, to leave out the words "unless either," and to insert instead thereof the words "if each"—which is closely connected with the three following Amendments on the Paper—(1) in line 29, to leave out the word "not"; (2) in line 30, to leave out the word "may" and to insert instead thereof the word "shall"; and (3) in line 33 to leave out the words "may, with the approval of the Board," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall"—I suggest that the Committee should take the whole discussion on the first Amendment.

Commodore KING: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, to leave out the words "unless either," and to insert instead thereof the words "if each."
The Committee will remember that at an earlier stage we sought to secure the assent of the House to the various schemes and, with regard to the general scheme, to get a positive resolution of the House. That was only in regard to the schemes themselves. The power which is sought to be given under Subsection (4) is far more drastic and far-reaching than anything which would appear in one of the schemes. It will he noted that not only does it give the Central Council power to make representations for
regulating or facilitating the production, supply or sale of coal,
but they may, if they think—
it is necessary or expedient. … make provision for any matters in addition to or in substitution for the matters mentioned in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of this Section.
The Committee will realise that that is giving power under this Sub-section to go beyond the Bill, and really to amend the Bill without getting the assent of this House. We give very wide powers in this Bill. Under this Sub-section we are giving not only the wide powers of the Bill but we are being asked to give still wider powers, so that the council may come along with alternative schemes and introduce any matters in addition to or in substitution for the matters in the Bill itself. That is going much too far. We consider that the Bill is going be-
yond anything that this House has ever done before in regard to the wideness of the powers that are given. It is wholly unconstitutional, apart from being wholly undesirable and very unwise, that we should give powers enabling an Act of Parliament to be amended simply by a negative Resolution of this House. That is what is laid down in this Sub-section, namely, that a change in the law may be effected by laying a Motion on the Table of the House and obtaining negative consent, that is, unless a negative Motion has been moved and carried that the Order shall not be made. In this Amendment and the subsequent Amendments we seek to make a positive Resolution necessary, and I hope that the Government will accept that proposition.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot help feeling that there is a great deal of substance in what the hon. and gallant Member has said. The question is whether we should have what I might call a negative approval or a positive approval. In these days, with the very considerable inroads on Parliamentary time, it is not unnatural that we lean rather to the negative approval, but I feel the force of what has been said and, reasonable as we desire to be, I can intimate to the hon. and gallant Member that the Government are prepared to accept the four Amendments, which will turn the negative approval into positive approval.

Mr. MANDER: My name is attached to the first of the four Amendments. I am sorry that the Attorney-General has consented to accept the Amendment, because it gives power to both Houses, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, to act in this matter. I understand that the Attorney-General has ruled that the House of Lords is not part of Parliament.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No. The hon. Member will allow me to say that that misrepresentation has been made so often that it should not be made unless the person making it has taken the trouble to read the opinion which I endorsed. It says nothing of the sort. The word "Parliament" is sometimes used in a popular sense. When we talk of Members of Parliament we do not mean Members of the other House, but Members of this House. In the opinion that I endorsed, having re-
gard to the context, it is quite plain that it meant this House and not the other.

Mr. MANDER: I accept that statement from the Attorney-General, and I understand what he means, but my remark was not seriously meant. I must say, however, that I am sorry that he has accepted the Amendment, because it gives equal powers to the House of Lords as to the House of Commons. That is why I put my name down to the Amendment, wishing to see the House of Commons alone acting in this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 29, leave out the word "not."

In line 30, leave out the word "may" and insert instead thereof the word "shall."

In line 33, leave out the words "may, with the approval of the Board," and insert instead thereof the word "shall."—[Commodore King.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 229.

Division No. 221.]
AYES.
[9.53 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Edmunds, J. E.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lawrence, Susan


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Egan, W. H.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Alpass, J. H.
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Ammon, Charles George
Freeman, Peter
Leach, W.


Angell, Norman.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Arnott, John
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gibbins, Joseph
Lees, J.


Ayles, Walter
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gill, T. H.
Lindley, Fred W.


Barnes, Alfred John
Gillett, George M.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Batey, Joseph
Gossling, A. G.
Logan, David Gilbert


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gould, F.
Longbottom, A. W.


Bellamy, Albert
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Longden, F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lowth, Thomas


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Benson, G.
Groves, Thomas E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Grundy, Thomas W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McElwee, A.


Bowen, J. W.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
McEntee, V. L.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mackinder, W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Harbison, T. J.
McKinlay, A.


Bromfield, William
Hardie, George D.
MacLaren, Andrew


Bromley, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Brooke, W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
McShane, John James


Brothers, M.
Haycock, A. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Brown, C W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hayday, Arthur
Mansfield, W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayes, John Henry
March, S.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Marcus, M.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Markham, S. F.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marley, J.


Buxton, C R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Marshall, Fred


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Herriotts, J.
Mathers, George


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Matters, L. W.


Cameron, A. G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Melville, Sir James


Cape, Thomas
Hoffman, P. C.
Messer, Fred


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hopkin, Daniel
Midleton, G.


Charleton, H. C.
Horrabin, J. F.
Mills, J. E.


Chater, Daniel
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Milner, J.


Church, Major A. G.
Isaacs, George
Montague, Frederick


Clarke, J. S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morley, Ralph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnston, Thomas
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mort, D. L.


Cove, William G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Moses, J. J. H.


Daggar, George
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Dallas, George
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Muff, G.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, Thomas
Muggeridge, H. T.


Day, Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Murnin, Hugh


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kinley, J.
Naylor, T. E.


Devlin, Joseph
Knight, Holford
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Dukes, C.
Lang, Gordon
Noel Baker, P J.


Duncan, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Oldfield, J. R.


Ede, James Chuter
Lathan, G.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Palin, John Henry
Sherwood, G. H.
Toole, Joseph


Paling, Wilfrid
Shield, George William
Tout, W. J.


Palmer, E. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Townend, A. E.


Perry, S. F.
Shillaker, J. F.
Treveivan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Shinwell, E.
Turner, B.


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Vaughan, D. J.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Simmons, C. J.
Viant, S. P.


Pole, Major D. G.
Sinkinson, George
Walker, J.


Potts, John S
Sitch, Charles H.
Wallace, H. W.


Price, M. P.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Watkins, F. C.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Richards, R.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wellock, Wilfred


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Snail, Harry
West, F. R.


Ritson, J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W-Bromwich)
Sorensen, R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Romeril, H. G.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Roshotham, D. S. T.
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Rowson, Guy
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Strauss, G. R.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sanders, W. S.
Sullivan, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sandham, E.
Sutton, J. E.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Sawyer, G. F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wise, E. F.


Scrymgeour, E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Scurr, John
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Young, R. S. (Islington. North)


Sexton, James
Thurtle, Ernest



Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Tillett, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr William Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colville, Major D. J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l., W.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Aske, Sir Robert
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Astor, Viscountess
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Atholl, Duchess of
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Gadfrey
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Atkinson, C.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hanbury, C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Harbord, A.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hartington, Marquess of


Balniel, Lord
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Haslam, Henry C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Berry, Sir George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Blrchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Birkett, W. Norman
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Elmley, Viscount
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Boyce, H. L.
England, Colonel A.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bracken, B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Everard, W. Lindsay
Iveagh, Countess of


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ferguson, Sir John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fermoy, Lord
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Buchan, John
Fielden, E. B.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Carver, Major W. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lleweilln, Major J. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Glassey, A. E.
Long, Major Eric


Chapman, Sir S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Christle, J. A.
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grace, John
Macquisten, F. A.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Gray, Milner
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Colman, N. C. D.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Makins, Brigadier-General E.




Margesson, Captain H. D.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Thomson, Sir F.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Tinne, J. A.


Meller, R. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Salmon, Major I.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Muirhead, A. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Warrender, Sir Victor


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Savery, S. S.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Oliver, p. M. (Man., Blackley)
Scott, James
Wells, Sydney R.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


O'Neill, Sir H.
Simms, Major-General J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Ormsby, Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Skelton, A. N.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Withers, Sir John James


Peake, Captain Osbert
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Womersley, W. J.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon. Barnstaple)
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Power, Sir John Cecil
Somerset, Thomas
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ramsay, T. S. Wilson
Southby, Commander A. R. J.



Ramsbotham, H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir George Penny.


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur



Remer, John R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions of district schemes.)

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, to leave out the words "election of," and to insert instead thereof the words "representation on."
Earlier in the afternoon we dealt with the question of the representation of the owners on the central board. On that occasion the President of the Board of Trade said that he thought that the matter had better be dealt with in connection with the district boards. As the Clause is drafted, if the matter was decided purely by election, 65 or 70 owners could carry every one of their representatives on the district board and thereby prevent any possibility of the minority being represented. I am deliberately not suggesting any scheme by which the minority should be represented, because that obviously depends upon the strength of the minority in any district, but I do feel that words should be put into the Bill to make certain that the minority obtains representation. It might be. by proportional representation or other means, but as conditions may change and vary in different districts I do not wish to tie the hands of the Board of Trade by putting down the exact words.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The position is rather different upon this Amendment. In the discussion upon the central scheme, I indicated that I was addressing myself to the precise Amendment that
we should consider ways and means and sec that all points of view were represented. I am afraid that I could not accept the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford has moved, but I will undertake to consider in what way we can meet his point of view. The simple proposals of the Bill are that the minority would obtain representation, and I will undertake to see what can be done to achieve this object before the Report stage.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I only desire to safeguard the representation of the coalowners on the executive board, and I think the method of election which is proposed is wholly unsatisfactory. We are not proposing proportional representation or a second ballot. If it is simply left to 100 coalowners to vote for 10 candidates and opinion is divided to the extent of 60 for and 40 against, the 60 will vote for the 10 candidates who back their their scheme. The President of the Board of Trade has stated that what he regarded as a safeguard is no safeguard at all. What is wanted is power to vote and to get your man in. I think there should be a scheme which will give the minority the control which they should have to secure such representation as is reasonable.

Mr. GRAHAM: I have already made it clear to the Committee that I can give no promise, but I would say to my right hon. Friend that, after all, we have con-
sidered the interest, to put it no higher, of the owners when these schemes were framed. We observe, first of all, that they are all parties to the scheme when it comes into existence, and surely, in the interests of the progress of the scheme, they are not going to deny representation in this country to what has been a minority up to that point. But there is a further consideration. The Board of Trade has to approve these schemes and the method of election, and above all the method of securing representation from every point of view, so that up to a point these two safeguards are there. I undertake, without giving any binding promise, to look at any other method of securing the representation of all parties, and, as I understand it, the Committee does not press me to go any further.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the President of the Board of Trade will not approve any scheme unless he is satisfied that it is reasonable on all these points. Over and over again when I have piloted Bills through this House I have been told that, however much the House could trust my discretion, I had no right to put that discretion into an Act of Parliament when legislating for all time. I only wish to leave on record that we must be satisfied on Report in regard to the points which we have raised, and it must be understood that the minority will have a right to secure representation. On that understanding, I will ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) to withdraw his Amendment.

Captain BOURNE: I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment on the strength of the promise which has been made by the President of the Board of Trade. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, to leave out the words "in the district," and to insert instead thereof the words:
and the organisations of mineworkers in the district. The executive board to consist of representatives of the owners and workers in equal numbers, together with a chairman, who shall be appointed by the Board of Trade to represent the public interests.
After the touching unanimity that we have just seen, and the eloquent testimony that we have had as to the necessity of all interests being represented on the board, I imagine that there will be no difficulty in getting this Amendment accepted by the Government. It is not only a question of the sale of coal, but a question of the producing of coal. It is the mine workers who produce the coal, and it is for them to say whether the scheme is successful or otherwise; and, as their wages and conditions depend on the whole question, they should be entitled to have their representatives on the board in order that they may be able to say what the conditions of production shall be.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I need hardly say that I have a very great deal of sympathy with the principle which lies behind this Amendment, because it is undoubtedly desirable, in many of these industrial changes, that the two sides of industry should be represented, and that to an increasing extent they should take their part in the direction of industry. I must, however, be quite candid with the Committee as to the nature of this scheme. If this Amendment were adopted, quite clearly the owners would be in a minority in regard to every executive scheme in the district, and I am bound to say at once to the Committee that in that state of affairs there would not be a scheme in any district. That would be one of the immediate results if this Amendment were added to the Bill; and it is also perfectly plain that, while the Board of Trade might be able to approve of a scheme, or of two or three schemes, in the event of schemes not being forthcoming from certain districts, it would be physically impossible for the Board of Trade to put in a scheme for every district, that is to say, to impose it upon the industry as a whole. I want to be perfectly frank. We have had to face the facts as they are, and they are as I have described. Perhaps, with this explanation, my hon. Friend will be able to see his way not to press the Amendment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I have no desire to imperil the setting up of these boards, although I say quite frankly that I am not enamoured of the Bill as a whole. In view of what the President of the
Board of Trade has said, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. C. DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 6, line 2, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) for empowering the executive board to establish a voluntary marketing scheme as may be expedient or necessary for the purpose of ensuring as far as possible—

(i) the economical handling, despatching and transport of coal;
(ii) the economical distribution of coal for sale in Great Britain or any other country;
(iii) the elimination of unnecessary costs and charges between the producer and the ultimate consumer of coal;
(iv) the encouragement of economic cooperative selling and avoidance of unregulated competition and, in particular, of sale below the cost of production;
(v) the encouragement of research and the improvement of methods of utilising coal."

I was glad to hear the Attorney-General a few moments ago say that the Government were always reasonable, because I knew that that was a prelude to his acceptance of the Amendment which was before the Committee. I hope that I may say the same with regard to the President of the Board of Trade, who, on the first day on which I had the honour of proposing Amendments to this Bill, accepted two out of three of them. I submit this Amendment also for his kind consideration. The Clause gives the power for the formation of a district scheme, and my reason for proposing the insertion of this Amendment is that the whole purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, is to make the cost of production as near as Epossible, while leaving a profit, to the price which the consumer has to pay. We on this side of the House believe that that could be best done by having a general marketing scheme, not limited by a quota or by the fixing of minimum prices.
My Amendment would not force the executive board, but would empower them, to establish a voluntary marketing scheme. They will not even have the power to thrust it upon a district and compel its acceptance, but it will be a voluntary scheme, and the board will be empowered, so far as may be expedient or necessary, to establish a scheme for the purpose of ensuring the five matters which are set out in the Amendment. These are
matters which have been considered by every Commission to be necessary in order to bring the coal trade once again on to its feet.
The first is the economical handling, despatching and transport of coal. A great deal of the waste in this country is due to transport. I have had experience, and so has the Attorney-General, of cases in which the price charged to the consumer is largely inflated by the cost of transport. I remember one case in particular where the cost of transport by railway amounted to as mach as 3s. 6d. a ton, and, with the assistance of the Railway and Canal Commission, the price was reduced to 9d. That is economic transport and economic handling, and, if a marketing scheme can be provided to enable better economic handling, so much the better.
The next part would be the economic distribution of coal for sale in Great Britain or in any other country. That is establishing centrol depots from which the coal can be most conveniently and better distributed. The elimination of unnecessary costs and charges between the producer and the ultimate consumer speaks for itself. That is to do away with as many as possible of the middlemen who take so much of the difference between the pit-head price and the price ultimately charged to the consumer. The others are the encouragement of economic co-operative selling and the avoidance of unregulated competition, and, in particular, the very fact that has been emphasised by the President of the Board of Trade throughout, that the sale shall not be below the cost of production. Finally, the scheme should also provide for the encouragement of research and improvement in the methods of utilising coal.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The hon. Member has told us that on a previous occasion he had two out of three Amendments accepted. I cannot help thinking that that was a fair quota, with which he might very well have been content. I do not dissent from the argument that these steps are necessary in further reorganisation at all stages of the coal industry and, more particularly, from the point of view of bridging the gulf between the producer and the consumer. The hon. Member makes it clear that this is only a voluntary or permissive proposal, and I am obliged to ask whether,
as the result of my inquiries and consultations with the owners and with the industry as a whole, there is any chance of getting this put into operation in the form in which he has stated it. I am bound to report that there is no chance in existing conditions, and, therefore, the inclusion of these words would lead to no result.
There is another consideration. If any plan of this kind were to be adopted, it would not be sufficient or appropriate to set it forth in a few short paragraphs of this kind. In my judgment, to bridge the gulf between producer and consumer would require a pretty elaborate Bill with a good deal of regulation, and that may be, for all I know, another stage in coal legislation in this country. I am obliged to make this point perfectly clear, not because I am opposed to this Amendment in spirit or in purpose but simply because I regard it as certain to achieve nothing at all even if it were included.
I do not want to conclude on that purely negative note. There is this which I can say to the Committee, that the organisation of the owners which is brought into being in Part I of the Bill will, in my judgment, in the near future, very likely lead to this result. They will be able for the first time to present a united front to the wholesale and retail trades, and even now discussions are taking place between the owners in certain districts, which discussions will become much more frequent in character when they are organised. I think it will lead to some kind of scheme of economy in bridging the gulf between the producer and the consumer. I have always made it perfectly plain that unfair prices to the consumer—and sometimes these unfair prices are charged in the retail trade—react adversely on coal production, and are unjust to what I call primary producers in this country in a problem which is by no means confined to coal. I trust that the hon. and learned Member, for the reason which I have given that the Amendment will not achieve anything, will not now press the Amendment to a Division.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is one advantage which will come out of this Bill when it is passed into law, namely,
that there will be an organisation of the coalowners of the country. That is one thing which is very much to the good. They will be formed into something like a corporate body. Hitherto the trade has been far too sparsely organised. The quarrel with this part of the Bill is rather that it will be restrictive instead of constructive, that the powers which are conferred are powers of restriction upon production and price, instead of which the industry needs, above all, a far more constructive spirit, a building up in various ways, better organisation and better methods. All the inquiries which have taken place in the industry have urged this. The Lewis Committee strongly urged that there should be a properly organised system of co-operative marketing. The Duckham Committee on Transport has strongly urged that there ought to be a pooling of wagons, and has emphasised the wastefulness of the present system of distribution, and the Royal Commission in 1926 emphatically advised that there should be more constructive activity in the way of organising the industry for the purposes of production, in regard to research, in regard to methods of utilisation of coal, and in regard to transport and to sale.
I earnestly hope that the outcome of the committees and the organisation of various kinds which are to be set up in Part I will be that these committees before long, when they have got over the initial difficulties on matters with which they are directly charged, will turn their attention to the other matters to which my hon. and learned Friend has called attention and which, I believe, are vital to the further prosperity of the industry, I agree also with the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment, as it stands, is not sufficiently developed or elaborated really to be put into an Act of Parliament in its present form, and, therefore, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and in view of the reasons which he has given, I think that my hon. and learned Friend will probably be willing not to press his Amendment further.

Mr. C. DAVIES: After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, I desire to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 17, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that in determining the standard tonnage of any mine regard shall be had to the present output and economic and efficient working and condition of development and prospects of development of that mine, with a view to determining such standard as will not hamper the development of a mine with a growing output or allot to a mine with a diminishing output a standard in excess of its probable output.
The intention of the Amendment is on its face. The district board is to make a scheme, and in making this scheme it has to allot the standard tonnage. By this Amendment we seek to issue an instruction to the Board that in fixing the standard tonnage certain things shall be taken into consideration. First, output. There I am not quite sure as to the word "present" and I should like to hear what the President of the Board of Trade has to say on that point. Certainly output is to be taken into consideration. Then there is the economic and efficient working of the mine; its economic and efficient condition, its prospects of development, and that the standard tonnage shall not be so fixed as to hamper or restrict development nor to allot to a mine with a diminishing output a standard in excess of its probable output. As the Bill stands, without an instruction of this kind, a standard might be allotted to a closed pit. The Committee will agree that that should not be done. The Amendment will give guidance to the Board and I hope the President will accept the intention of the Amendment, which I believe is his intention as well as ours.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This Amendment raises a subject which has had very prolonged and serious consideration in the preparation of this Bill, and it is quite appropriate that Parliament should ask questions about the method of fixing the standard tonnage and applying the quota to that standard tonnage before we pass with this phase of the Bill. In the scheme of regulation which is in force already, that is the Five Counties Scheme, they have had to lay down a method which was calculated to get the support of the largest possible number of coalowners in the area, and accordingly have had to make a good many concessions both in standard tonnage and in the quota. In the Five Counties
Scheme they were entitled to take an average over a long term of years, 15 years, and get their arrangements put on that basis for the purpose of the quota under that scheme. It is part of the duty of the Board of Trade to approve these schemes before they come into force and the question now before the Committee is whether any kind of direction worth anything at all can be included in this Bill. I am bound to tell hon. Members that this is a very difficult thing to do. It is remarkably difficult so frame a definition which would not lead to difficulties in almost every direction, but I think I can say this with safety—that, according to all the information at my disposal, the standard tonnage will be taken over a recent period and will be related to what these collieries have been doing within recent times. If that standard tonnage is scientifically fixed—a phrase which I think I am bound to employ in this connection—then any chance of injustice or penalty to developing mines will be very largely removed. Let the Committee remember that the essence of this case is really in the standard tonnage. The quota allocation is uniform for the time being in that district—that is, it is applied to all pits and to the standard tonnage which is fixed for each pit, and so our main duty is to get the standard tonnage properly fixed and then the quota will not inflict any serious injustice.
If that standard tonnage is taken over a recent period and related to what the colliery has been doing, then it is part of the duty of those carrying out the district schemes, in fixing the standard tonnage and of the Board of Trade in approving of it, to have regard to all the factors which have operated in that connection. But that is very different from trying to put in a statutory obligation of this kind, more particularly in the light of those difficulties to which I have briefly alluded. For example, the hon. Member in this Amendment uses the term "the present output." If we take the Five Counties Scheme it is quite true that that scheme included nine-tenths of the output of that area but you have a certain amount outside—people who are quite unregulated and who can produce right up to the limit of their capacity, and if we fixed the tonnage on present output you might be doing a permanent injustice and conferring a right upon that minority for all time, by taking a standard
tonnage and by relating it to an existing unregulated output. That would be manifestly unfair and it would be unjust if any recent period were taken, as for instance in South Wales when special conditions obtained or if we were to go back to the period in Scotland when there was regulation, before that system broke down, after a comparatively short time, round about a year ago.
Frankly, I think this Amendment is impossible as it stands, but I can give, the Committee this assurance, that in fixing the standard tonnage and in applying that tonnage, or rather in approving of the arrangement, these considerations will be very clearly before us. We should defeat a very large part of our own object if we penalised the efficient pits when we wish to do the very reverse. I trust that, with that explanation, my hon. Friend will not seek to import words into the Measure which, as they stand, would never apply and would, I fear, defeat rather than assist the object which he has in view.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has given very inadequate reasons for rejecting the Amendment and has indeed given one or two reasons for accepting it. He said that it was difficult to put precautions of this kind into the Bill because when certain coalowners were promoting a voluntary scheme in the Five Counties, they found that they had to make certain concessions to get everybody in and that they could not make their scheme as perfect as they would have liked. It is quite true that when you are making a voluntary scheme and wish to bring in a number of people you have to make concessions here and there. Here he has got all the owners into a scheme, and, if we are all to be forced into a compulsory trust, let us have it as good a trust, and not as bad a trust, as possible. The President said that all the things set out in this Amendment are very true, and that when he, as President of the Board of Trade, comes to consider whether he can approve a scheme, he will have the most careful regard to all the things put down in the Amendment. Indeed, he will see that each scheme complies with these provisions, so that the expanding pit shall have proper consideration, and that the decaying pit shall not have too much given to it. He says, "All these
things it will be for me, as President of the Board of Trade, be consider, and I shall not approve a scheme unless all these matters are taken into account."
If that be so, why not put that direction in the Bill? Suppose that the President were in every case going to propose the scheme in the first instance, and he got up at that Box and said, "If I have to prepare a scheme, I should have special regard to these considerations," the House might at once say to him, "Very well, if that is the basis upon which your scheme is going to be proposed, you will not have any objection in putting that into your Bill, so that you and your successors will be bound by it." If the President of the Board of Trade were going to propose schemes himself, and he says that these are the right principles by which to be guided, he would be the first to admit that these principles ought to be put into the Bill. But he is not going to propose the schemes. Everything has to be proposed by the local coalowners. Then why not say to the coalowners, "If you do not have regard to these principles, I shall not approve your scheme." That is what he said he will not do. Why not put it into the Bill, and so let the coalowners know that the scheme will not be accepted by the Board of Trade unless those conditions which the Board regard as of paramount importance are fulfilled? It seems to me common sense and simple logic to put it into the Bill.
It is not as if he were asked to lay down absolutely hard and fast rules to which every scheme has to comply, and that a mathematical formula were set out. I should understand that that would not be possible, but let us look at the words. The Amendment does not say that every scheme must conform to a hard and fast rule. What it says is that
in determining the standard tonnage of any mine regard shall be had,
etc. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shall!"] Certainly, but that is what the President says. He says that when the scheme comes to him, "I shall have regard to these principles," not "may," and he says further, "I shall not approve the scheme unless it conforms to those conditions." If the President of the Board of Trade, in approving a scheme, "shall" have regard
to the very conditions which are set out in this Amendment, and if the scheme is to come to him from coalowners who know that it will not go through unless it does conform, then why in the name of fortune cannot we have in the Bill a statement that in preparing the scheme the coalowners shall have regard to those conditions? Sensitive as the coalowners may be, I do not believe the President of the Board of Trade would be stretching their allegiance too far in accepting what seems to me to be a reasonable Amendment.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: I wish to support this Amendment, as I think it is a most important one from the point of view of the coal mines, and I agree with every word of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister). For years past coalowners have been urged to spend money on the development of their mines, bringing them up to date, so as to enable them to produce coal in the most economic fashion. I know of coalowners who, for seven years past, have been spending money in developing their mines and who now feel that the whole of that money will be wasted through the introduction of this quota system. I could give the right hon. Gentleman the names of owners who have spent thousands of pounds in developing the lay-out of mines in order to secure the most economic production of coal. Up to date they have not benefited to the extent of 6d. from the expenditure of that money, because the new developments have not been brought into operation, and now the possibilities of reaping benefit will be ruled out of account because the quota will be based upon the standard tonnage of the pit in the past. Surely that is not the intention of the Government! Surely we ought to encourage those who have done their best to bring the industry up-to-date in the matter of the production of coal. This Amendment deserves consideration in their interests.
I know that in the North it is felt that this Amendment would meet their case. There are mines there the owners of which have spent in development large amounts which they believe, it may be erroneously, will now be wasted money. If we are to have any hope of success
in producing coal at a cheap rate, we must support the lay-out of new mines. Further, I am sure the President of the Board of Trade knows that contracts have been made with the Crown under which it is laid down that production is to be at the highest possible level. There are mine-owners who are now developing below water in the Crown area where they are under contract to produce the maximum output who will, unless this Amendment is accepted, be denied that output. Not only will they be crippled financially, but they will be crippled from the point of view of the working miners. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment, in principle, at least, even if not in these particular words.

Sir BASIL PETO: When listening to the President of the Board of Trade I was irresistibly reminded of the speech on Second Heading delivered by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). In his resumé of the powers conferred by the Bill he ran through a number of items, the levies, the quota and so on. The Committee will remember that he answered every question hypothetically—" Who is it fixes the levy? The coalowners." "Who suggests the quota? The coalowners." The President of the Board of Trade said, in effect, in answer to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who is attempting by this Amendment to put in some indication as to the direction in which the council should proceed in order to do something constructive in the development of the industry, that it was not right that Parliament should attempt to do anything of that kind. We should be up against great difficulties, he said, for he finds that that is so from his consultations with the owners. Behind the owners he tells us one thing more, that we must trust the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade, he says, will have regard to all these things, being a benevolent bureaucratic institution. It is his recommendation to Parliament, to take no steps whatever to see to the direction that this legislation will have. He says we may rest quite assured that if the owners fail by this beneficent provision the President of the Board of Trade will see that it is all right on the night. That is the new method of legislation proposed by the Socialist Government.
To me it seems perfectly obvious that in a Clause of this kind, which has been described so rightly from the benches below as purely restrictive in its provisions, we should make some effort, at any rate, to give an indication to this council and take some measures or, at any rate, empower it to do something constructive for the industry. That is what the Amendment proposes, and I think the President of the Board of Trade has not only given us no answer to the Amendment but has said, in effect, that if we were really a legislating body this is an Amendment which ought to be put into the Bill, but as we are merely trusting to the coalowners, and if they do not do the right thing then we can trust the Board of Trade, why should Parliament be bothered about putting in any Amendment at all to see that this Bill does something effective for the improvement of the industry? On these grounds, I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Leith will persist in his Amendment. If the words are for any reason not precisely applicable—we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) that they were very carefully considered and very wise words—though the President of the Board of Trade found no fault with them, they can be modified. I do not think we ought to part with this Clause without seeing that these words are inserted.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I do hope that the President of the Board of Trade will consider yet again the advisability of accepting the Amendment. It is quite clear that the general sense of the Committee is in favour of an Amendment of this character. No one has spoken against it except himself, and he condemns it in very faint terms. He takes no exception to any part of the Amendment except the word "present." My hon. Friend will be very willing to move the Amendment with the omission of that word. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is not a factious or foolish opposition to this Bill in the country, but a very real anxiety lest the effect of it may be to penalise the efficient mine and to protect the inefficient, and thereby to keep the cost of production of coal, and therefore the price of coal, above what it might properly be. Once the standard output is fixed, for all the mines, their fate is settled, because when the quota
comes to be applied to the standard out-put, it must be applied equally to everybody, efficient and inefficient alike; it falls equally on the just and on the unjust, and therefore it is, when we are fixing the standard output, the standard tonnage, that we have to take these matters into account.
The right hon. Gentleman surely would not wish this Committee to regard this Bill as something sacrosanct, agreed between him and the owners, and that cannot be touched. We sometimes have to deal with treaties between two high contracting parties, which have either to be accepted as a whole or rejected, but no claim of that sort can be made here, and the Committee is quite entitled to press the right hon. Gentleman to accept an Amendment which is really reasonable in itself. It is not, as has been said by the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister), proposing a cut and dried scheme, a hard and fast rule, which must be applied rigidly in every case; it is merely an indication of what it is that Parliament desires to be considered if and when these schemes are being framed. It would help to mitigate in some degree the hostility to this Part of the Bill if this Amendment were accepted, and I would venture strongly to urge on the right hon. Gentleman that he should not reject the proposal.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: My right hon. Friend has fastened on the two words which quite plainly raise very serious difficulty in this Amendment, but before I deal with that point, may I just discuss the point of the inefficient mine? It has been a great deal with us in all these long discussions, and I think now we do not get rid of it until it is amalgamated with some other undertaking and finally put out of action altogether. It is one of the grave problems of the industry that, however bad times may be, these collieries continue to produce coal, and that being so, they would have their place. I do not want to waste more time on the inefficient mine, or the weak mine, because part of the object of this Amendment is to try to safeguard development and to provide for the proper standard tonnage, that that tonnage ought not to confer too much on the weak colliery.
The position is different, I quite recognise, if these two words "present output" are omitted from the Amendment,
because I think hon. Members opposite recognise that the only effect of that would be to give a further benefit to present unregulated pits over the whole of the remainder. If these words were deleted, the Clause which would remain would be of the nature of a direction that the development should be taken into account, and that nothing should be allocated, as this suggests, to a mine with a diminished output. I think the words on the Paper are difficult. As a matter of fact, every effort was made, in the long consideration of this problem, to find a way of meeting it, but if hon. Members opposite agree to the deletion of the words "present output," and do not ask me to accept to-night the precise words on the Paper, I will at least give this promise, that I will do my best, in consultation with the parties, to find a form of words that may be appropriate, because there is no difference of opinion between us on this point. If the words "present output" are deleted, we are all agreed that the developing concerns should not be discouraged in their development, and if hon. Members were prepared to leave it on that basis, I would, however difficult the task—and it is difficult—try to find some form of words.

Mr. E. BROWN: In acknowledging the friendly way in which we have been met by the right hon. Gentleman, may I say that surely the word "output" should stand, though the word "present" might come out? Surely we must have regard to the output. In moving the Amendment, I pointed out that I was not sure about the word "present," and I shall be very glad to omit it from the Amendment if, at a later stage, the right hon. Gentleman can meet the substance of the Amendment. On that understanding, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major NATHAN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, after the word "class," to insert the words:
Provided that if in the case of a coal mine which is owned or controlled by, or comprised in an industrial undertaking, the coal supplied from that coal mine to that undertaking is in excess of its quota then its quota shall be deemed to be the amount of coal so supplied.

11.0 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This Amendment seems almost to raise the same point as the Amendment which stands in the names of the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian (Major Colville) and other hon. Members—in line 37, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that in determining the quota with respect to a coal mine which is owned or controlled by a manufacturing or industrial company or undertaking, the coal which is supplied, whether as coal or coke, by that coal mine to that company or undertaking for consumption in the works of that company or undertaking shall not be included in either the standard tonnage or the quota of that mine.
Perhaps it would be convenient if we discussed them together.

The CHAIRMAN: That would be the convenient course.

Major NATHAN: In view of what has been said by the late President of the Board of Trade, I am by no means bound by the precise form of the words of my Amendment, nor am I, on reflection, entirely satisfied that this is the most appropriate place for it. Should the Amendment commend itself to the Committee, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade would take into consideration the question whether it would not come more appropriately at the end of paragraph (d) instead of the place where it stands upon the Order Paper. This Amendment is designed to deal with the case of the vertical combine or the mixed mine. The scheme of the Bill is that every coal mine shall come within the framework of the quota system. There are obvious reasons why coal mines which are part of a larger enterprise, which are even comprised in a vertical combine, should be treated on a differential basis. If the general scheme of the Bill were to apply to the mixed mines a curious result would follow. In the case where an iron and steel works, or a chemical business of an engineering business had acquired a coal mine for the express purpose of providing itself with coal for the purpose of its own business, thereby ensuring that it should not have to look elsewhere for its coal, it would be denied the possibility of using its coal mine to the best advantage and would be put in the extraordinary position that, while the mixed mine would be part of its enterprise and adequate itself to provide the coal re-
quired for its business, it would have to go elsewhere to acquire the necessary surplus of coal over and above the quota, instead of being able to take the coal supply which it had had the foresight to acquire for itself. That seems to me to be uneconomic and impossible to defend.
The problem is not raised for the first time in this country, or by this Bill. The same problem has had to be dealt with in Germany. I would refer the Committee to the Report of the Lewis Committee on co-operative selling in the coalmining industry, where this problem is referred to on page 33 and the following pages. In Germany, when this same problem was met, arrangements were made whereby the mixed mine was given two quotas, one for its own consumption and the other the sale quota. That would meet the case here where the consumption is less than the total production. This matter is really of fundamental importance in the economic management of our great heavy industries. The quota system as such should apply to these mines, but if an industrial or manufacturing enterprise requires for its own purposes less coal than its quota obviously it should only be permitted to sell in the open market the difference between its actual quota and the amount that it requires for its own purposes. Otherwise it would be receiving an unfair advantage over other mines.
The mixed mine, however, may he in the position that, its quota being less than its production, it yet requires, for the purpose of its own business and not for sale outside, an amount of coal which is in excess of its quota, and may in fact be as large as its production capacity. This Amendment is designed to establish the situation in which the industrial undertaking would be entitled to use the coal produced from its own mine to the full extent to which it requires coal and to which its own mine is capable of producing. In other words, the mixed undertaking is not to be called upon to go to outside sources for coal as long as it can provide the coal for itself. I have said that I am not bound to the wording of the Amendment, but I trust that, whether my form of words or that of a later Amendment commends itself to the Committee, at least the principle
will be approved and that this important provision may find a place in the Bill.

Major COLVILLE: I have on the Amendment Paper an Amendment dealing with this question, but I will not move it if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) will agree to the insertion of the words "whether as coal or coke" in his Amendment.

Major NATHAN: I am willing to accept that suggestion.

Major COLVILLE: I wish to put forward several exceedingly important points. In many parts of the country there are composite undertakings the owners of which have had the foresight to purchase mines in order to have more coal of a particular class readily available in sufficient quantities for their manufactures. In common fairness the right hon. Gentleman cannot apply limitations to those manufacturers who have who have laid out their capital for this purpose. The Amendment is not confined to one industry. There are coke ovens, blast furnaces, brick manufacturers, shale oil industries and many other industries in the country in which they require suitable coal for the purposes of their manufacture. The quota will work very hardly in many directions but in no case will it operate more severely than against those manufacturers who have secured coal for those purposes.
Those industries are not in such a prosperous condition that they can afford to take risks of that kind. Unemployment in the iron and steel trade is very much heavier than in the coal trade the percentage being 23 in the former and 13 in the latter. In Scotland the shale oil industry has had very hard times indeed. In the shale industry they have acquird supplies of coal for the retorts and they are going to be subjected to limitations which are bound to react on their trade. The coal trade cannot stand alone, it must have consumers, and if this Bill acts in such a way as to damage the interests of those consumers who are most closely interested in the coal trade that will react on the coal industry and there will be more unemployment amongst the miners.
Two things are very necessary. The first is equity and the second efficiency. We are suffering from foreign competition in countries where coalowners have realised that they cannot stand alone. They have grouped themselves with other industries, and we ought to do the same in this country. This Measure cuts right across such combinations which are beginning to be formed in this country. We have not advanced to the extent that some of our competitors have in that respect, but this will set back the clock. I most earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this Amendment on the two grounds that I have mentioned, namely, those of equity and efficiency.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This Amendment again, like so many of its predecessors, raises an important question which has been very carefully considered. I will explain the position to the Committee, and the very great difficulty which would be caused if either of these Amendments were adopted. They have now been brought substantially into line. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) suggested that when the output devoted to ancillary undertakings was in excess of the coal supplied to them, they would of course get that output; while my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville) has an even wider proposal on the Paper, which would take the whole range for the purposes of the supply of a mixed undertaking outside of the proposed regulation altogether. Let the Committee observe what would happen if these Amendments, now related together, were accepted.
In the first place, there would be a manifest and unfair distinction between individual pits. When we have adopted, as we now have, a quota regulation under this Bill, the only possible basis is a regulation of the output in the case of all pits and all collieries in the country, and output has been defined. If this Amendment were adopted, a clear distinction would be drawn between those pits which stand separately and independently, merely as part of a colliery undertaking, and pits which happen to be part of a mixed concern, that is to say, which are tied to some ancillary undertaking in the form of what is called
a vertical trust. Those pits, which are part of a mixed undertaking or vertical trust would have a 100 per cent. standard tonnage and quota applied to them, or, in other words, would be subject to no regulation at all, and therefore they would be in an entirely different and, I suggest, unfair position as compared with other collieries which were independent of an iron and steel plant or any other part of a mixed undertaking.
In the second place, and this is even more impressive from some points of view, let us consider the effect on the iron and steel industry itself, An iron and steel plant which happened to have a colliery undertaking would be at an advantage, because its coal supply would not be regulated at all under the terms of these Amendments, whereas all the other iron and steel undertakings in the country which happened not to be tied up to a colliery would have to depend upon regulated coal, subject to a quota, and, presumably, able to command a rather better price. There would therefore be in the iron and steel industry manifest anomalies, and the tendency would be to try to rope in some colliery undertakings for the express purpose of bringing them within the total exemption which would be applied if these Amendments were carried, and in a very short time a good deal of the necessary regulation, as we regard it, would disappear.
I think I have said sufficient to show that neither from the point of view of the pit nor of the iron and steel undertaking would these Amendments be practical politics. I would, however, venture to explain the solution of the difficulty. The coal supplied to an iron and steel undertaking, whether it were part of a mixed undertaking or whether it were a free undertaking, would be supplied under this Bill in terms of the trade or destination for which it was required, and, as I have already explained, this is of particular importance to the iron and steel trade. There would be many cases with a special standard tonnage and a special quota, which would be fixed from time to time, which in practice would give 100 per cent. of the output for the iron and steel industry as a whole from all the pits as a whole. That is one of the precise proposals of the Bill, and it is the only way
of putting the pits on the one hand and the iron and steel industry on the other hand on terms of strict equality. That is the reply to the Amendment, and I trust that I have said sufficient to enable hon. Members to see that these Amendments would never work in practice. The Government could not possibly accept them, but I assure the Committee that the interests of this industry are in fact adequate safeguarded.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division. I really do not think the argument the President of the Board of Trade has used has any substance. His argument is two-fold. He says, in the first place, "We cannot accept this Amendment, because it would be very unfair to other coal mines." How could it be unfair to other coal mines? It could only be unfair if a coal mine belonging to a manufacturing undertaking was given power to compete in the open market against other coal mines not so owned on a preferential basis. This Amendment is carefully drafted so as to avoid that danger. It never comes into competition in the open market in respect of any excess over the quota. We are not asking for an unlimited quota for a subsidiary coal mine. All that is asked is that it should have its quota and its standard of tonnage exactly as is given to any other coalmine in the country. It starts absolutely dead level. Provided it only supplies to the undertaking that uses it an amount less than or equal to the quota that has been allotted to it, it obtains no privilege under the Amendment. The only case where it obtains a benefit is where it actually works coal in excess of its quota and passes over the whole of that coal to the steel works. In that case, if it is 6 per cent. over the quota, we say, because the whole of that has gone into the steel works, you ought not to penalise this pit. What damage are you doing to any other pit? What unfairness are you creating by allowing that to happen? There is not an ounce of coal going into the open market in competition with the other quota pits. I cannot see how that other pit is going to be injured. Each has the same standard of costs and it is given no benefit in the competing market. There is really no case on that score that this is unfair to other coal mines.
Then the right hon. Gentleman says it is unfair to other manufacturing undertakings which have not got coal mines of their own and have to buy their coal in the open market. But why? That man bought his coalmine years ago in order to be sure of his coal at a price. He thought it a wise form of insurance and he took the risk. Sometimes, when there has been a slump, he lost a good deal of money. Probably in the last few years a great many steel makers were very sorry they had coalmines. Their coal cost them much more than it would have done in the open market. Because they have taken that risk and paid that premium and obtained an insurance of real value, why should they be deprived of the benefit of it? There is a very strong case for this Amendment.

Sir H. SAMUEL: It is unfortunate that a point of real importance should come before the Committee at a late hour, but in spite of the lateness of the hour, and in justice to the very large interests involved I think the Committee should emphasise the view which is held on the benches above and below the Gangway here. The justification for the proposals in this part of the Bill as a whole is that it is designed to stop cutthroat competition between the mine-owners, which reduces the price of coal in the market to an unremunerative level, and thereby miners and others suffer. This Amendment applies to coal which does not come on to the market at all, and which does not affect the market price in any way. It is coal which goes direct from one branch of an undertaking to another branch of an undertaking, and in these circumstances there is no reason why it should be made subject to the quota.
A great iron and steel works has bought a coal mine. It develops that coal mine so as to secure a production which is precisely regulated to the amount required by the works. They spend capital, they lay out their mine, they employ labour, so as to produce the tonnage which the works require. That works quite harmoniously, and there is an economic balance between the coal side and the steel works side. Then comes the right hon. Gentleman, and through this Bill he suddenly cuts down the output of the coal mine, throwing it out of relation to the
purpose for which the coal mine was created. The consequence will either be that the mine will have to shut down a large part of its working and throw its own employés out of work, or else, so as not to keep a part of its own mine idle, have to go into the market and buy quotas from other mines elsewhere at a certain cost, and thereby increase the cost of working and the cost of iron and steel put on to the market in competition with the rest of the world.
The right hon. Gentleman says: Oh, well, the schemes, when they come into force, will meet this. They can allow 100 per cent. output for all these mines which supply iron and steel works particularly. But there may be a majority among those controlling the schemes who are not interested in mines of this character and they may insist upon the quota being applied universally, with the detrimental results I have described. If it is the case that these schemes ought to allow 100 per cent. for this output in the case of these mines why not put in this Amendment. Then the consequence will be, that Parliament, having decided that these mines shall not be cut down in their production, the schemes will have to provide for all other similar mines, providing similar works not to be cut down, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has given in his speech the very answer to his own objection to this, saying that if this were put in, the schemes would be adapted so as to prevent any inequality or injustice to the various classes of mines doing this particular trade. It is desirable on all grounds to encourage these combinations of mines with the other industries to bring them more and more into organic relationship with the chemical works, the coke ovens and the gas works, and other undertakings of that kind. This Bill would be greatly improved if the effect of it were to encourage that reorganisation and combination and not. as would be the effect of leaving the Bill as it stands without this Amendment, seriously to discourage it.

Major DAVIES: I make no apology at this hour for adding my protest to the refusal of the President of the Board of Trade to consider this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is rather like a Bench of Bishops who have come to an
agreement with the Church Assembly and produces for us a Deposited Book and says that we must take it or leave it. The right hon. Gentleman says: "I cannot accept this Amendment because if I except these vertical trusts I destroy the whole basis of my quota system." I would reply that that does not show the impossibility of refusing to apply it to these vertical combinations, but it shows the folly of this quota system which he has included in his deposited book. It is amazing to contemplate that the right hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be jockeyed into this position by those who have given him his brief in connection with this Bill. We have had dinned into our ears that what we want for our industrial troubles is rationalisation. Here we have organisations with the foresight, determination and courage to carry out their own rationalisation system. They seek to control their own supplies of raw material; coke oven and chemical organisations have developed their own pits in order to provide themselves with what they need. The right hon. Gentleman now says that he is going to compel them to come into an organisation which is primarily a "cinch" for the coal industry. They will have to come in and are to be handed over to owners who may be their competitors and who will be able to dictate a quota. They are going to dictate to them how much coal they are to get from their own mine, which they need for their own industry. One of these vertical combinations by working 100 per cent. is able to get all the coal it needs at a minimum price. The quota system comes along and says that they must only produce 80 per cent. They will have to lose the other 20 per cent. and make it up by buying someone else's quota in the market. It means an additional cost to the undertaking. And we talk about helping industry! It is a most complicated state of affairs for a Front Bench which says that it represents the business needs of this country to come solemnly to the House of Commons and stultify itself by this kind of legislation. I hope that the party below the Gangway and this party will refuse to take part in any such policy.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in the course of his powerful
argument left, unintentionally, the impression that the Amendment was smaller in its operation than it really is. He referred to the steel industry. The Amendment goes beyond the case of the particular industry which happens to have a coal mine, and hon. Members have already drawn attention to one or two very important aspects of this question which are of great importance to the coal industry. One of the things upon which all people who have been discussing the coal industry in recent years have emphasised is the desirability of utilising the by-products, and it is the case that a large number of enterprising companies in recent years have spent large sums of money in utilising coal which is not saleable as coal on the market. That is one of the things for which the Amendment is designed to provide. In particular, coke and by-product works have been set up by a large number of companies in this country. I am told that the proportion of small coal raised in the collieries of this country is very large—about one-third of the output, and until some use could be made of the small coal it was waste. It was waste until scientific development and experience enabled it to be put to some use, and that has been done through these coking works, which have involved a heavy expense on the part of the companies indulging in them. It is important to remember that it is impossible to work that plant efficiently and economically unless there is a full load to work upon, and that is

one of the things which we have in mind in the Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade has a well deserved reputation for clarity of thought and expression, but I thought his speech showed a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Amendment. He spoke more than once about inequality as between different collieries, but the Amendment does not give rise to any inequalities as between collieries. The Amendment has been drawn up with great care, and all that it seeks to accomplish is that the quota shall meet the requirements of those companies which are industrial undertakings and happen to own coal mines. It is not designed to enable those undertakings to compete with the collieries in the selling of coal or in adding to the quota, but it is designed to ensure that where there are undertakings of this character which happen to own coal mines which they have purchased from a business point of view, that they shall not be penalised in respect of the coal which they require for the other purposes of their undertaking.

Major COLVILLE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "supplied," to insert the words "whether as coal or coke."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 251.

Division No. 222.]
AYES.
[11.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Duckworth, G. A. V.


Albery, Irving James
Butler, R. A.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Carver, Major W. H.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Eden, Captain Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Aske, Sir Robert
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Elmley, Viscount


Atholl, Duchess of
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm"W.)
England, Colonel A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chapman, Sir S.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Christle, J. A.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balniel, Lord
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Colville, Major D. J.
Ferguson, Sir John


Beaumont, M. W.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Fielden, E. B.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Crichton-Stuart, Lard C.
Foot, Isaac


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Boyce, H. L.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Bracken, B.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Glassey, A. E.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Gower, Sir Robert


Brown Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Granville, E.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Gray, Milner


Greene, W. P. Crawford
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Savery, S. S.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Scott, James


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Skelton, A. N.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Muirhead, A. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hanbury, C.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Smithers, Waldron


Harbord, A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Somerset, Thomas


Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Haslam, Henry C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Neill, Sir H.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Tinne, J. A.


Hurd, Percy A.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hunt, Sir Gerald B.
Penny, Sir George
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Train, J.


Iveagh, Countess of
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wallace, Capt. D. E (Hornsey)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Purbrick, R.
Wardlaw-Mline, J. S


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pybus, Percy John
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wayland, Sir William A.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wells, Sydney R.


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
White, H. G.


Lamb, Sir J. O.
Remer, John R.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Windsor-Clie, Lieut-Colonel George


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Ruggles-Brlse, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Womersley, W. J.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)



Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Salmon, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Long, Major Eric
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Lymington, Viscount
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Church, Major A. G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clarke, J. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cluse, W. S.
Haycock, A. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Hayday, Arthur


Alpass, J. H.
Compton, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry


Ammon, Charles George
Daggar, George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Angell, Norman
Dallas, George
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Arnott, John
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Ayles, Walter
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Herriotts, J.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Devlin, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Barnes, Alfred John
Dukes, C.
Hoffman, P. C.


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, Charles
Hollins, A.


Bellamy, Albert
Ede, James Chuter
Hopkin, Daniel


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Edmunds, J. E.
Horrabin, J. F.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Egan, W. H.
Isaacs, George


Benson, G.
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Freeman, Peter
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Johnston, Thomas


Bowen, J. W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gill, T. H.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gillett, George M.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bromfield, William
Gossling, A. G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Bromley, J.
Gould, F.
Kelly, W. T.


Brooke, W.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kennedy, Thomas


Brothers, M.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kinley, J.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lang, Gordon


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lathan, G.


Buchanan, G.
Groves, Thomas E.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Burgess, F. G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lawrence, Susan


Cameron, A. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Cape, Thomas
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lawson, John James


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Charleton, H. C.
Harbison, T. J.
Leach, W.


Chater, Daniel
Hardie, George D.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)




Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Palin, John Henry
Sorenson, R.


Lees, J.
Paling, Wilfrid
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stephen, Campbell


Lindley, Fred W.
Perry, S. F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Logan, David Gilbert
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Strauss, G. R.


Longbottom, A. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Sullivan, J.


Longden, F.
Potts, John S.
Sutton, J. E.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Price, M. P.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lunn, William
Quibell, D. J. K.
Taylor, W. B. (Norlolk, S. W.)


Macdonald, Gordon (ince)
Raynes, W. R.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Richards, R.
Thurtle, Ernest


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tillett, Ben


McElwee, A.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Tinker, John Joseph


McEntee, V. L.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Toole, Joseph


McKinlay, A.
Ritson, J.
Tout, W. J.


MacLaren, Andrew
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Townend, A. E.


McShane, John James
Romerll, H. G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Turner, B.


Mansfield, W.
Rowson, Guy
Vaughan, D. J.


Marcus, M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Viant, S. P.


Markham, S. F.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Walker, J.


Marley, J.
Sanders, W. S.
Wallace, H. W.


Marshall, Fred
Sandham, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Mathers, George
Sawyer, G. F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Matters, L. W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Melville, Sir James
Scurr, John
Wellock, Wilfred


Messer, Fred
Sexton, James
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Middleton, G.
Shaw, Rt. Hon Thomas (Preston)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Mills, J. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
West, F. R.


Milner, J.
Sherwood, G. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Montague, Frederick
Shield, George William
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Morley, Ralph
Shillaker, J. F.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Shinwell, E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Mort, D. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Moses, J. J. H.
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sinkinson, George
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercllffe)


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Muff, G.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gn)


Murnin, Hugh
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wise, E. F.


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Frank (Nuncaton)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, Renale (Penistone)



Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Snell, Harry

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 251.

Division No. 223.]
AYES.
[11.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Foot, Isaac


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ford, Sir P. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Chapman, Sir S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Christie, J. A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Aske, Sir Robert
Colville, Major D. J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Atholl, Duchess of
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Glassey, A. E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Balniel, Lord
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Granville, E.


Beaumont, M. W.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Gray, Milner


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bird, Ernest Roy
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Davies, Maj, Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boyce, H. L.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bracken, B.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Briscoe, Richard George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Elmley, Viscount
Hanbury, C.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
England, Colonel A.
Hartington, Marquess of


Butler, R. A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Haslam, Henry C.


Carver, Major W. H.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Ferguson, Sir John
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fielden, E. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Hurd, Percy A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith, Carington, Neville W.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Smithers, Waldron


Iveagh, Countess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Somerset, Thomas


Jones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Penny, Sir George
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lamnert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Purbrick, R.
Tinne, J. A.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pybus, Percy John
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Train, J.


Lleweilln, Major J. J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Remer, John R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Long, Major Eric
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wardlaw-Milne. J. S.


Lymington, Viscount
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Warrender, Sir Victor


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mac Robert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, Sydney R.


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
White, H. G.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Mond, Hon. Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Winterton, M Rt. Hon. Earl


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Womersley, W. J.


Muirhead, A. J.
Savery, S. S.



Nathan, Major H. L.
Scott, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Major-Ceneral Sir Robert Hutchison


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Skelton, A. N.
 and Major Owen.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Isaacs, George


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Devlin, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Dukes, C.
Johnston, Thomas


Alpass, J. H.
Duncan, Charles
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Ammon, Charles George
Ede, James Chuter
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Angell, Norman
Edmunds, J. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Arnott, John
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ayles, Walter
Egan, W. H.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Kelly, W. T.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Freeman, Peter
Kennedy, Thomas


Barnes, Alfred John
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kinley, J.


Batey, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph
Lang, Gordon


Bellamy, Albert
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gill, T. H.
Lathan, G.


Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central)
Gillett, George M.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gossling, A. G.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Benson, G.
Gould, F.
Lawrence, Susan


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)
Lawson, John James


Bowen, J. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Leach, W.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Groves, Thomas E.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Bromfileld, William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lees, J.


Bromley, J.
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Brooke, W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lindley, Fred W.


Brothers, M.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Logan, David Gilbert


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Harbison, T. J.
Longbottom, A. W.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hardie, George D.
Longden, F.


Buchanan, G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Burgess, F. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Lunn, William


Calne, Derwent Hall.
Haycock, A. W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Cameron, A. G.
Hayday, Arthur
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Cape, Thomas
Hayes, John Henry
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
McElwee, A.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
McEntee, V. L.


Chater, Daniel
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
McKinlay, A.


Church, Major A. G.
Herrlotts, J.
MacLaren, Andrew


Clarke, J. S.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
McShane, John James


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hoffman, P. C.
Mansfield, W.


Compton, Joseph
Hollins, A.
Marcus, M.


Daggar, George
Hopkin, Daniel
Marley, J.


Dallas, George
Horrabin, J. F.
Marshall, Fred


Dalton, Hugh
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mathers, George




Matten, L. W.
Romerll, H. G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Melville, Sir James
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Messer, Fred
Rowson, Guy
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Middleton, G.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thurtle, Ernest


Mills, J. E.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Tillett, Ben


Milner, J.
Sanders, W. S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Montague, Frederick
Sandham, E.
Toole, Joseph


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sawyer, G. F.
Tout, W. J.


Morley, Ralph
Scrymgeour, E.
Townend, A. E.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Scurr, John
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Mort, D. L.
Sexton, James
Turner, B.


Moses, J. J. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Vaughan, D. J.


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Viant, S. P.


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sherwood, G. H.
Walker, J.


Muff, G.
Shield, George William
Wallace, H. W.


Murnin, Hugh
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watkins, F. C.


Naylor, T. E.
Shillaker, J. F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shinwell, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wellock, Wilfred


Oldfield, J. R.
Simmons, C. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sinkinson, George
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Palin, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H.
West, F. R.


Paling, Wilfrid
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Rennte (Penistone)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Picton-Tubervill, Edith
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Potts, John S.
Snell, Harry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Price, M. P.
Sorensen, R.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Raynes, W. R.
Stephen, Campbell
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Richards, R.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wise, E. F.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Strauss, G. R.



Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Sullivan, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ritson, J.
Sutton, J. E.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. C. DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, after the word "district," to insert the words:
Provided that in any district a company or person owning a single colliery undertaking shall have such allowance added to their quota as may be reasonably required to prevent such company being placed by the operation of the quota at an undue disadvantage in respect of the cost of production as compared with a company owning several colliery undertakings. Any owner who is dissatisfied with the decision of an executive board in regard to this proviso may appeal to the Judicial Commissioners whose decision shall be final and binding on the executive board.
At this late hour I only propose to explain the Amendment briefly. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite desire to stay here, I am prepared—[Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

12.0 m.

Mr. DAVIES: The purpose of the Amendment is to provide protection for single collieries, so that they shall not be at the mercy of com-bines which, apparently, are favoured by some hon. Members on the other side, but shall have protection in the quota allocated to single collieries. I move this Amendment because in the South Wales voluntary
marketing scheme an arrangement was made that extra protection should be given to single collieries, so that they should not suffer when the quota system came into operation under the voluntary system. May I illustrate the position in a few words? Suppose that a single colliery produces 700,000 tons of coal per annum, and the quota reduces its production by 15 per cent. Under those circumstances, when it is barely paying its way on 700,000 tons per annum, it gets into difficulties; the 15 per cent. reduction will mean an extra cost of 1s. to 1s. 6d. a ton on the amount of coal produced, which will probably mean disaster to the colliery. What is the position in regard to a combine which is producing, say, 4,000,000 tons of coal per year? It is reduced by 15 per cent., but the quota will be the same, and that combine can close the inefficient pits and work the efficient ones, and it will not suffer in the slightest degree. The object of the Amendment is to secure that the single colliery shall receive Parliamentary protection and not be left to the mercy of those outside this House who seem to have supplied the terms of this Bill.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: It is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. It is quite true, as my hon. and
learned Friend says, that in the South Wales scheme a provision was made for single pits, but the position is quite different when we are legislating for the country as a whole and providing safeguards for all undertakings in the executive bodies in the districts. It would be quite impossible in a scheme of this kind to put single pits in a different position from an undertaking which comprise two or more pits. There is an arrangement for fixing standard tonnage and quota in terms of any representation which will be made to the executive body of a district, and, beyond that, for arbitration if an individual pit owner is affected. The safeguards are adequate.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
There was an understanding that we should complete the Committee stage of this Bill in two days. One day remains, and I think it will be for the general convenience of hon. Members if we devote one more day to the rest of the Committee stage. The next day for the Committee stage will be announced on Thursday. When we meet again I hope we shall be able to proceed immediately to the discussion of the price regulation under this part of the Bill. I do not think it will be necessary to sit very late to complete the Committee stage, and I hope we shall be able to complete the Committee stage somewhere round about 12 o'clock.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think the President of the Board of Trade will find any obstruction on this side of the House in regard to the suggestion which he has just made. I can assure him that the speeches on this side of the House will not be of undue length providing that the speeches of hon. Members opposite are not so long as they have been to-day. I hope we shall be able to complete the Committee stage at a reasonable hour.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1929.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): I beg to move,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, entitled the Local Government (District Council Electors) Order (Scotland), 1930, which was presented on the 22nd January, 1930, be approved.
If there is any desire to have this formal Resolution explained, I shall be glad to do so, but I understand that there is no objection to it in any part of the House. Therefore. I formally move it.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the city of Coventry, which was presented on the 4th day of February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Exmouth Gas Company, which was presented on the 4th day of February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the county borough of Birkenhead, which was presented on the 6th day of February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the City of Chichester Gas Company which was presented on the 11th day of February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and
1929, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the county borough of Bury, which was presented on the 13th day of February and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes after Twelve o'clock.